The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be attending a Cabinet meeting tomorrow? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Royal Assent

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Iraqi Citizens: Civilian and Military Casualties

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their policies towards the deaths and injuries of both civilian and military Iraqi citizens and the welfare of their dependants during and since the 2003 war in Iraq.

Lord Bach: My Lords, every effort is made to minimise the impact of military operations on the Iraqi civilian population, and we deeply regret all civilian casualties. Since 1st May 2003, we have investigated every civilian fatality allegedly caused by UK military personnel, sometimes resulting in a formal investigation by the Special Investigation Branch.
	We treat claims for compensation in respect of civilians who have allegedly been killed or injured by UK forces since 1st May on their merits, in accordance with English law. We have no liability to pay compensation in respect of Iraqis killed or injured during combat operations.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he not agree that if the peace and reconciliation for which the Prime Minister has so wisely called is to succeed, it really is essential to recognise officially and fulsomely that many thousands of innocent civilians have died in the cause which we believe to be just? Does he not further agree that many of those serving in the Iraqi forces were already victims because in effect they had been forced into the ranks of the tyrannous regime and died not of their own volition and unwilling to fight? Does he not also agree that, in the wider cause of winning hearts and minds in the battle against global terrorism, it is essential for us to demonstrate magnanimity, generosity and, in the forthcoming trial, a commitment to exemplary standards of justice?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with all the three questions posed by my noble friend. He is absolutely right to say that there is a duty on us to be magnanimous and generous and, of course, to ensure that any trials are conducted fairly and in accordance with justice. I would go further and say that the example set by the British Armed Forces during the course of their appearance in Iraq and what they have done since hostilities ended is, to be frank, a superb example of how a peacekeeping force should behave. No one could accuse our Armed Forces of not acting magnanimously, generously and with enormous sensitivity in what is sometimes an extremely difficult situation.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the case of Ali, the limbless boy from Iraq, leaves one of the lasting impressions of the war with Iraq. By the way, he has had new limbs fitted and, I am told, is now doing well here in this country. What are the Government doing to rebuild the spinal injuries unit in Baghdad in order to provide vital and what are arguably basic services to citizens injured in a similar manner, but who are unable to receive the same support as Ali?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot answer the specific question put to me by the noble Baroness, but I can say that we are doing much to help the health sector, which is a crucial sector in the recovery of Iraq from its present state.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, how many civilian casualties have been recorded in the south of Iraq? I recognise the good practice undertaken by British forces, can the Minister tell us whether talks have taken place with the American forces over whether they should even record civilian deaths caused by their own soldiers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I would rather not answer the question about whether talks have taken place with our American coalition partners. However, I can talk about what has been done in our sector. We record all incidents involving fatalities but we cannot always ascertain the resultant number. In some incidents, particularly those such as ambushes and fire fights, the Iraqi injured and dead are in fact taken away by their compatriots. During other incidents, members of our forces have themselves been forced temporarily to withdraw. So we have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of fatalities and injuries resulting from such incidents. That does not stop us trying, and at the present time we are trying to gain an indication of the kind of numbers asked for by the noble Lord. That is not an easy task. When we do have clearer figures, I will write to the noble Lord and put those results in the Library of the House.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, what are the Government doing to strengthen civil society in Iraq, particularly the role of faith communities in delivering welfare to the needy of all kinds?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards faith communities, we are taking a leading role in organising meetings to ensure that the religious divide in that country is narrowed as best we can. The British are doing a huge amount in every field, including the one to which the right reverend Prelate particularly referred, to bring people together rather than let them stay apart.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, what steps are being taken specifically to deal with injuries to children? My noble friend will remember that in the run up to the war a number of noble Lords begged that cluster bombs should not be used. They were, of course, used. It is probable that there is a great deal of unexploded ordnance about which poses a continuing danger to children. What is being done to clear it up? Are any special steps being taken in relation to children's injuries?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as regards children, we consider particular requests that come in. We are doing a great deal of work with the hospitals that are now up and running again. I should remind my noble friend that cluster munitions are considered to be lawful weaponry in international law. During the course of the conflict they provided a unique capability against certain legitimate military targets such as dispersed armoured units.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that his assertion that trials should be conducted fairly and in the interests of justice is wholly to be applauded? Has that been communicated to the United States? How consistent with his assertion are the assertions of President Bush, who has called for the death penalty for Saddam Hussein.

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course the United States and the United Kingdom talk together about these matters. Indeed, my noble friend will have heard President Bush talking about the necessity for a proper and fair trial.

European Union: Common Embassies

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the expected accession of 10 countries to the European Union, what opportunities they see in establishing, in conjunction with the European Commission, common embassies with other member states.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the British Government have no plans to establish common embassies with other member states or common missions overseas with the European Commission, although we have welcomed the proposal to redesignate the 138 European Commission offices overseas as European Union delegations.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Given that the establishment of EU common embassies on single sites will afford embassy staff greater protection from terrorist attack; will give the EU a sharper image; will provide greater opportunities for accession countries; and will provide British and European citizens and businessmen and women with better services, will she not revive the proposal lost in the IGC of turning the EU Commission offices into EU embassies in order to fulfil the aims I have described and to support the putative EU Common Foreign Minister?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, there is a difference between the co-location of embassies on a single site—which may deliver on the kinds of points he raises, particularly in relation to security, which is a matter of growing interest—and a common embassy. We have co-locations—for example, in Tanzania—and the Foreign Office is considering ways of improving the security of a number of our embassies which are considered to be vulnerable, but I draw a distinction between a common embassy and co-location. The one is not an issue to which we shall return; however, it is sensible to consider the other in the light of the issues raised by my noble friend.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House—perhaps by a common letter—with which embassies in third countries do we now share services, not only location, with others? I recall that when I was in Reykjavik, someone noted that the British and German embassies there now share security and some common conference rooms, for example. I understand that the same takes place in some central Asian countries. Did the British Government support the proposal for a commonly staffed EU external representation service put forward in the IGC?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, I shall be very happy to provide him with a list. Off the top of my head, the one I can think of is in Tanzania. However, I should stress that it is one thing to talk about common services on issues such as security, but it is a very different thing to talk about having a common core to policies when we have made a point of ensuring that CFSP remains an intergovernmental rather than a Commission issue. As the noble Lord knows, we were very keen on that in the recent IGC.
	The noble Lord also raised the issue of the European external action service. We have been very interested in this but, as the noble Lord will know, it was dependent on a successful outcome to the IGC. That issue will have to await further discussion on the point made at the IGC about bringing together the Patten post and the Solana post.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords—

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Chalker.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hear my name being mentioned far too many times. Can the noble Baroness tell us what is happening about the cross-training between embassy staff, which was started some years ago, to try to provide better co-operation? While I support what she said about maintaining separate embassies in the EC, it is important that there is a greater understanding between those who work on EC matters in capitals. If she does not have the answer, perhaps she would write to me.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the cross-training will concern issues where there is an EU competence—the issues in Christopher Patten's remit of aid and trade. Of course, I understand the noble Baroness's interest regarding aid. I understand that progress is being made, particularly with the French, on some of these issues. I cannot give the her a full list of the countries involved, although my noble friend is telling me that we are giving support to countries that are taking on the presidency. I can write to the noble Baroness and give her a further detailed breakdown. There is not, however, training on issues surrounding CFSP, and I think it is important to maintain that distinction. Those of your Lordships who sat into the wee small hours discussing these matters will know how important that has been to many.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during my three ambassadorial postings, it was the custom to have regular meetings not only between the ambassadors of the EU in the post concerned but also between our commercial secretaries? It was also quite common practice for all of us to send a combined, concerted report to our respective Foreign Offices on political questions and, perhaps rather more importantly, on economic questions.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of that and am happy to say that concerning issues such as aid and commercial issues in particular, the Foreign Office still upholds that practice. The noble Lord will understand that on some matters of foreign policy, however, this has not been a particularly fruitful year in that respect.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as we are talking both in the convention and in the intergovernmental conference about a community of sovereign nation states, does it not therefore become imperative that those sovereign nation states have separate diplomatic representation on matters that are of import principally to them?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is very much the point I was endeavouring to make about the difference between co-location and having a sovereign embassy. There is no suggestion that the European external action service and the EU delegations should replace national diplomatic representation. It is enormously important to stress that. The draft treaty states that the external action service shall work in,
	"co-operation with the diplomatic services of the Member States",
	and that Union delegations shall operate,
	"in close co-operation with the Member States' diplomatic missions".
	I think that makes the distinction very clear.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did I understand from the noble Baroness's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the project for a European external diplomatic corps has now been pushed into the long grass, along with the whole constitution project?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have not dealt with how the IGC will now be dealt with by the Irish presidency. If I may say so very gently, the noble Lord is leaping ahead a few steps in that thought progression. It is now for the Irish to look at the ways in which they wish to progress what has happened following the IGC. The Taoiseach has made it very clear that he wants to have a round of discussions first and that he does not see there being any progress in the immediate future—that is, in the next few weeks—but we will have to wait and see how his discussions progress.

Government Key Performance Targets

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they remain confident of the validity of their key performance targets.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government set key performance targets as part of public service agreements which have already delivered higher educational standards, shorter hospital waiting times and reduced crime. The PSA framework is one of many public service reforms that puts the UK at the forefront of international best practice. The Government are currently investigating ways to achieve greater decentralised delivery and responsive local and regional services, consistent with a clear framework of national standards.

Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I have to say that I find it gloriously over-optimistic. May I remind him of Goodhart's law, promulgated by the eminent economist, Charles Goodhart? When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Why? Because it leads to all sorts of tricks determined simply to achieve the target.
	May I give the Minister the example of Lewes prison? For a long time, it was 133 out of 135 in the good prison list. Then, over two years, it suddenly became number 4, temporarily. Why? Because a new prison governor arrived who knew which boxes to tick—no suicides, no escapes. But equally, prison visitors tell me, there have been no long-term improvements in the prison. Is it not just that which leads to the huge cynicism about the Government's claims for public services?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, I do not think there is huge cynicism about targets. I think everybody recognises that targets are a very important part of any organisation's achievements. They certainly are for government. Why does the noble Lord think that 30 countries, including those in the European Community, are beating a path to the Treasury door to look at the way in which we are improving public services, measuring them and increasing accountability, which must be a major aim of any democratic administration?

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the achievement of targets needs to be independently monitored? If so, can he explain why the Government have just stripped the Commission for Integrated Transport of that role in relation to their transport policies?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the way in which targets are monitored is subject to very intensive scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that both the Audit Commission and the Select Committee on Public Accounts have looked very closely at government targets. It is not the case that there is no independent scrutiny of Government achievement against their targets. In the spirit of openness, and the recognition that no target would be meaningful if it were easily achieved, the Government have indicated areas in which they recognise they are falling short of certain targets in very limited areas.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very easy to reach waiting list targets when it comes to being seen in out-patient clinics? The hospitals will tell patients, "We can't put you on the waiting list for an out-patient appointment now, but if you contact us in two months, we will do it". It is a very easy way of achieving the targets.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, because there has been a criticism of some aspects of the out-patients list, we are looking again at that crucial question of the way in which national targets are interpreted on the ground. As I emphasised in my initial Answer, the next stage in our thinking must clearly be to look at the targets which are set for front-line workers in order that they achieve realistic objectives consistent with the strategy they are following against the national perspective. Waiting lists fit into that category.

Lord Newby: My Lords, we welcome the Minister's statement that the Government are in favour of greater decentralised target setting. Have he and the Government taken note of the recent NAO report about the way in which the RDAs operate, and targets operate in that respect? The report said that stakeholders—that is, those who actually have to make the thing work—report a sense of ownership of regional economic strategies but not of national targets. Will he therefore urge his colleagues in government to implement the NAO recommendation in the report that the regional development agencies target framework should be greatly simplified?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Lord. The National Audit Office report, which was of very great use both to the Government and the nation in that area of effective administration, identified that we needed to move away from the emphasis on the central target position to the more devolved one. The regional development agencies have a crucial role to play in that, so I largely agree with the sentiment that the noble Lord expressed.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I have a further supplementary question. I am in favour of tuition fees, because they make a lot of sense. I declare an interest as a member of the council of Sussex University. Why do the Government stick to the target that 50 per cent of all those who take GCSE exams should go to university? That takes no account at all of the number of young people who have the brains, the ability or the inclination to go to university. Surely, it would be wise to drop that target.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House is aware of the extensive expansion of university education over the past two decades. The noble Lord could have expressed exactly that sentiment when the number attending higher education was as low as 25 or 30 per cent. It is now up to 41 per cent. We are talking not about school leavers but about people between the ages of 18 and 30 experiencing higher education, and we are saying that half our nation should aspire to having that opportunity. That is from the perspective of most of our international competitors from advanced nations having far higher participation in higher education than even 50 per cent.

Stem Cell Research: EU Tissues Directive

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the United Kingdom would be bound by amendments to the European tissues directive which ban the use in research of embryonic stem cells and stem cells from cloned embryos.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the European Parliament voted on 16th December to accept amendments to the European directive, which will enable vital research on embryonic stem cells and stem cells from cloned embryos to continue. The directive safeguards high levels of safety and quality for all human tissues and cells, using human applications such as transplantation.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that that happened only yesterday, while my Question was tabled over the weekend. The compromise reached between the Council and the European Parliament will be extremely welcome, not least to the many scientists in this country engaged in this enormously important field of research. I should also add that I am grateful to his private office for bringing me up to date on the matter, as the procedures are extremely opaque.
	Would the Minister not agree that the people who are opposed to that kind of research are not going to go away, and that there may be occasions in future when exactly the same threat is posed to stem cell research being done in this country? Will he give the House an undertaking that, in the light of all the votes and debates that we have had, and the number of Select Committees that have considered the issue, there is no risk of us being told to desist such research by a European institution? Such a result would be utterly unacceptable.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. He is correct in saying that we have had nearly two decades of extensive public and parliamentary debate on many of these issues and reached a decision supported by a large majority of Parliament and the public. In our negotiations over the directive, we have made clear the UK's position and have spent a lot of time dealing with MEPs. I pay tribute to the cross-party support we have received from MEPs from the UK in that area. We have been clear about our objectives with those who take a different view from us. We have been clear about the need to protect patient safety but also not to thwart promising scientific research that would help thousands if not millions of patients in the longer term.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, welcome very much the result yesterday in the European Parliament, and the compromise reached with the Council. I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on that. However, is not the next task to persuade the EU to fund research in that area? Despite the Minister's comments, a significant number of Conservative MEPs expressed their disagreement with that funding. How would the Minister advise us how best to use the offices of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in that respect to persuade them that we need that funding?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. However, my understanding from the Commission is that, although there was some disagreement over the funding of research at the Council of Ministers on 3rd December, under the present legal interpretation there is nothing to stop the programme of research on stem cells continuing. We always welcome contributions from all sides of this House in trying to push our concerns in Brussels.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, would the Minister agree that what happens to research on embryonic stem cells depends very much on what happens with research on adult cells?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have been over that ground many times, and we believe that it is important to have stem cells available both from adults and embryos as part of pursing promising areas of research of benefit to patients.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following the acceptance by Parliament of the amendments to the human fertilisation and embryology legislation last year, many licences are now being awarded by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for such research in this country? Is he also aware that the favourable atmosphere towards stem cell research, with potential inestimable benefit to human health in the UK, has resulted in several distinguished scientists from countries from across the world, including the United States, coming to work in the UK? Is that not a position that we should protect at all costs?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course quite right. We share his views on the matter.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is it not the case that we have in this country a very robust regulatory mechanism based on sound scientific and ethical principles? I take the opportunity of commending my noble friend the Minister on the hard work that he and his officials have done in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why we have been able to demonstrate to other countries that there is a rigorous system for monitoring activity in this area, which made a contribution to the successful negotiations that have taken place.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am the chairman of the Steering Committee for the UK Stem Cell Bank. In that role, I ask the Minister to tell the House what stand the United Kingdom is taking in the United Nations on the subject. I am pleased to have his reassurances, and I am sure that the scientists of the United Kingdom will be very pleased with both yesterday's development and his reassurance that the United Kingdom will now pursue the release of EU funding for embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell research has been approved, but the money is required for embryonic stem cell research.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord may be referring to some of the discussions in the United Nations on reproductive and therapeutic cloning. We have made our position clear in our unwavering support to maintain the ability to carry out therapeutic cloning in this country.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I wonder if I could press the Minister further on the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Can he confirm that stem cell research is defined by the European Union as an ethical issue and therefore not a matter on which the European Parliament has powers to legislate? Will subsidiarity continue to apply on issues of this kind?

Lord Warner: My Lords, that is exactly the line of argument that the Government have pursued in these discussions. I have personally made that view known to a number of MEPs on behalf of the Government.

Middle East Peace Process

Lord Wright of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the road map for the Middle East peace process, and in particular on the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, despite the undertakings made at the Aqaba Summit, neither side has met its road map obligations. Israel has implemented neither the settlement freeze nor the dismantling of settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The Palestinian Authority has not begun sustained, targeted and effective operations against terrorists. Both sides should now simultaneously fulfil the obligations they have both accepted under phase one of the road map.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In spite of the current very welcome lull in violence on both sides, can she confirm that the so-called security fence, which is still being constructed, will place 15 per cent of the West Bank—home to 274,000 Palestinians—in Israeli territory, thus disrupting the lives of 680,000 Palestinians? Those figures come from the United Nations report. Can the Minister also confirm that Prime Minister Sharon has announced that he intends to build hundreds of new housing units in Jewish settlements deep inside the West Bank and Gaza, and that he has allocated vast sums from Israel's budget for their enlargement? What action is being taken either by HMG or by the quartet to draw these violations to the attention of the Israeli Government and, indeed, to world opinion?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, there is a welcome lull in the violence. I believe that it is now some two calendar months since any serious terrorist incident such as suicide bombings has occurred. However, the noble Lord is right to say that, despite that, a great deal of activity is taking place around the security fence. Particularly worrying is the treatment of the Palestinians within the closed zones in the security fence area and the way in which individuals become separated from their land or have to obtain licences in order to farm the land that they have owned for many years.
	The noble Lord is also right to draw our attention to questions surrounding settlement activity. On 23rd October the housing ministry invited tenders for some 143 new apartments in the Karnei Shomron settlement in the north-west of the West Bank, and another 180 north of Jerusalem. All these matters are brought to the attention of the Israeli authorities by members of the quartet, including the Foreign Secretary and myself. We also, of course, turn to our allies in the quartet to do the same. I am happy to say that on 25th November the United States was moved to cut some 289.5 million dollars from loan guarantees in the wake of the increasing Israeli expenditure across the green line, so the United States is also bringing pressure to bear.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, having seen this wall or fence for myself a few weeks ago, does the Minister accept that not only are the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Wright, gave correct, but that the wall itself divides communities, farms and, in one case, a university campus? Why, therefore, is the international community being so meek and mild in the face of a blatant breach of both international law and basic human rights?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not accept that the international community is being quite as weak-kneed as the noble Lord suggests. I, too, have seen the fence recently. I know exactly what it is like and I can see the way in which it divides communities. Indeed, I offered my observations on that to the noble Lord, Lord Wright. However, it is important not to lose sight of why the Israelis think that this fence is important. There is a genuine security issue for Israel. Let us not lose sight of that, because once we do, we lose sight of what is at the root of this problem. We lose sight of the fact that there really is a security problem for Israel but that the way that Israel has chosen to deal with it is to build a wall or fence—call it what you will—which in terms of international law is in entirely the wrong place. While we criticise only one side and not the other, we shall simply not make progress. In my initial Answer I stressed that it is up to both sides simultaneously to address the obligations that they have both made.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, has my noble friend reached any conclusion about the outcome of the Geneva Accord and whether the combined efforts of a former Minister, Mr Yossi Belin, on the Israeli side and a Palestinian Minister will make any progress towards making the road map a more useful contribution towards securing peace in the Middle East? Do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to meet the participants in the Geneva Accord?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we discussed the Geneva Accord the other day and I said to your Lordships then that although we did not think that the Geneva Accord took the place of the road map, it has been a very welcome development in providing another avenue of discussion. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave it some warm words of welcome in that context when it was published recently. My noble friend asks about any plans to meet the authors. Should the authors seek to have a meeting in the United Kingdom, of course we would do our utmost to accommodate that at an appropriate level within the Government.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, sometimes an unjustifiable link is made between behaviour in Israel and the rise in anti-Semitism in this country. Is the Minister able to make clear what the Government are already doing to counter the growth of anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom and in continental Europe?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to say that when I was in Israel I was able to tell the Israeli Government that the United Kingdom would be part of an OECD initiative on anti-Semitism. The right reverend Prelate has put his finger on a very important point. There had been some initial reluctance on the matter. However, it is important that the United Kingdom is seen to take a full and active part in dealing with something that many people believe is becoming an increasing scourge.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is there any hope to be drawn from the report that Mr Sharon will meet Ahmed Qurei shortly and propose some new version of a Palestine, albeit divided up into cantons? It does not sound very hopeful, but can any positive conclusions be drawn from that?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not in a position to say. I am aware of the development to which the noble Lord alludes. He may be interested to know that some people are speculating on what may be said in a speech that Mr Sharon has scheduled for later this week. At this stage I cannot tell the noble Lord how we believe that will develop. He will no doubt hear the speech when we do. I hope that we shall be able to see at least some glimmer of hope of a move in the right direction.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords—

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately after the Question is put on the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees regarding the Procedure Committee, my noble friend Lord Warner will repeat a Statement on a development in variant CJD.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Administration and Works

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should point out that the Committee of Selection agreed to appoint the Lord Bishop of Guildford to the Administration and Works Committee. However, the Lord Bishop of Guildford has been translated to the diocese of Chelmsford. Therefore, this Motion will reappoint the same person to the Administration and Works Committee but under his new title.
	Moved, That the Bishop of Chelmsford be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merits of Statutory Instruments

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion establishes a new committee to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The terms of reference follow those proposed by the Procedure Committee in its third report of the last Session, except that the Motion appoints 11 members to the committee instead of the nine originally suggested. That change has been agreed by the usual channels and the Committee of Selection.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, being:
	(i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;
	(ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
	(iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative or negative resolution;
	but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act;
	with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:
	(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;
	(b) that it is inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances since the passage of the parent Act;
	(c) that it inappropriately implements European Union legislation;
	(d) that it imperfectly achieves its policy objectives;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Addington, L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Boston of Faversham, V. Colville of Culross, L. Desai, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. Hunt of Kings Heath (Chairman), L. Jopling, L. Methuen, E. Northesk, V. Ullswater;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December (Cm 6058), and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I believe that it would be helpful to your Lordships and to those concerned with disability issues outside Parliament if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House could explain why it is expedient to set up this joint committee. Naturally, I had given her notice that I intended to raise the matter this afternoon.
	The usual channels recognise that pre-legislative scrutiny may be helpful, but the selection of this Bill for that procedure seems to be rather odd. As I pointed out in the debate on the Loyal Address, such a proposal for a Bill of this kind has been government policy for a very long time. However, it has been discussed and consultation has taken place for about six years. So far as I can establish, there are no major matters of disagreement—certainly none which could not be dealt with by the normal committee procedure.
	As I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, among outside groups which are concerned with these issues there has been considerable disappointment that the Government have come forward with a draft rather than a substantive Bill. Are the Government prepared to consider whether it is appropriate for it to be dealt with in the way that the Government have proposed or, at any rate, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that, if we go ahead with the committee, at least a substantive Bill will be introduced in this Session? The matter has been delayed for a very long time and further procrastination seems to be unnecessary.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He said that a great deal of concern had been expressed about the fact that the Bill would go through pre-legislative scrutiny. My understanding is that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in January that we would publish a draft Disability Discrimination Bill, that announcement was widely welcomed. Those doing so included the chair of the Disability Rights Commission. I am not entirely sure what has happened between January and now to change the minds of those who welcomed such a move at that time.
	The reason that we have gone down this route is that we want good scrutiny of the Bill to take place. Before a substantive Bill is brought before Parliament, we want to iron out any concerns between the different stakeholders and between the two Houses. I am very pleased that it will be a Joint Committee of both Houses.
	With regard to my giving a commitment on a substantive Bill being introduced this Session, the noble Lord will be aware that I am unable to do so. We made a commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny this Session, but I cannot make any commitments in relation to future Sessions because I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for the response of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. However, following the announcement in the Queen's Speech that it would be a draft Bill, certainly the strong reaction among a number of the bodies concerned with these issues was one of disappointment that there would not be a substantive Bill. Following six years of consultation in which, I understand, there was general consensus on these matters, it is not clear exactly what we shall gain by further delay and pre-legislative scrutiny. There is great concern that the passage of the legislation may not be completed before the end of the Parliament, despite the Government's commitment to it. Therefore, as the deadline of April next year is not unreasonable, I ask the noble Baroness seriously to consider whether there will be time to deal with the Bill in this Session. Will she at least say that she will reconsider the matter?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give such an undertaking. The Government remain committed to this legislation and that is why we brought it forward. We remain committed to dealing with all stages of the legislation when it is introduced in substantive form. We are pleased that it has been brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny precisely because we want to ensure that we get it right.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should say a word or two of clarification, particularly with regard to the proposals for Thursday sittings. The Procedure Committee sent a short questionnaire to all Members of the House to determine the preferred pattern for Thursday sittings. The clear majority of those who returned the form wished the House to sit at 11 a.m., with Starred Questions at the start, and the House to rise at about 7 p.m. Accordingly, the committee makes that recommendation.
	The committee made a further tentative recommendation that, when the main business of the day is the Committee or later stages of a Bill, the House should break for one hour at 1.30 p.m. in order to give those involved in the Bill a break. Other business, such as an Unstarred Question, would be taken in the lunch break. No break would be taken where the main business was a Second Reading, a debate or a series of different items. As at present, it is not the intention that the House should simply adjourn during pleasure without business of any kind.
	The committee was divided on that issue. Therefore, the report was written with the option of omitting three paragraphs so that the House itself could decide. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is agreed to, the House will normally consider the main business of the day from 11.30 a.m. until about 5.30 p.m., when an Unstarred Question or other business could follow. If the amendment is disagreed to, the House will break for an Unstarred Question or other business at 1.30 p.m., but only if the main business is the Committee or later stages of a Bill. That will mean that the main business of the day will conclude at about 6.30 or 7 p.m.
	The report also makes proposals regarding the rotation rule and written ministerial Statements. I hope that those items are self-explanatory. However, if any noble Lord so wishes, I am happy to provide further explanations.
	Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 6).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. THURSDAY SITTINGS
	In our Fourth Report of last session we recorded that we were circulating a short questionnaire to all members of the House, to be returned by Friday 10 October, seeking views on the timing of Thursday sittings.
	By the closing date we had received 368 responses, expressing views as follows:
	
		
			 Option 1 (Thursday sittings to continue as  at present): 63 (17.1 per cent) 
			 Option 2 (House sits at 3.00 p.m., rises by  about 10.00 p.m.): 100 (27.2 per cent) 
			 Option 3 (House sits at 11.00 a.m. with  Starred Questions at the start, rises by  about 7.00 p.m.): 200 (54.3 per cent) 
			 Other: 5 (1.4 per cent) 
		
	
	In view of the clear majority for option 3, we accordingly recommend that, from the start of 2004, the House should sit from 11.00 a.m. to about 7.00 p.m. on Thursdays. Starred Questions should be taken at the beginning of business.
	We recognise that, when the main business is a committee or later stage of a bill, it may be unreasonable to expect those involved to continue all day without a break. One suggestion made to the Committee was that the business concerned should end at 5.30 p.m., and be followed by an Unstarred Question or other business until 7.00 p.m. Other suggestions were that there should be a one-hour break for other business at 4.30 p.m., or that there should be a break of 1½ hours from 1.30 to 3.00 p.m.
	Our recommendation, however, is that where business is of this nature there should be a lunch break of about one hour for other business from about 1.30 p.m. We recommend that, as in relation to dinner breaks, it should be possible to take an Unstarred Question, limited to one hour, during this break. No break would be taken when the main business was a Second Reading, a general debate, or a number of short items of business.
	Note: If the House wishes there to be no lunch break on Thursdays then an amendment to the motion to approve this Report to leave out this paragraph and the two preceding paragraphs would produce that result.
	The proposed change would require judicial sittings to be moved from their usual time of 2.00 p.m. on a Thursday. The Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary has indicated that he sees no difficulty in this.
	We recognise that taking Starred Questions at 11.00 a.m. on Thursdays could cause difficulties for those asking and answering topical questions. Accordingly we recommend that the topical question now taken on Thursday should be moved to Monday, with the ballot drawn at 2.00 p.m. the previous Thursday.
	2. THE ROTATION RULE
	The Committee recommends that the Chairmen of the Constitution and Economic Affairs Committees should be exempt from the application of the rotation rule for up to three sessions. This would bring these committees into line with the Science and Technology Committee and the sub-committees of the European Union Committee.
	3. WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
	The Committee recommends that the House should adopt, from the start of 2004, the practice of the House of Commons, introduced at the start of the last session, permitting the publication in the Official Report of Written Ministerial Statements. These would replace "planted" questions for written answer, removing the need for a Lord to be asked to table a question. They would be printed separately from written answers in the Official Report, thus eliminating any possible confusion between "planted" and other written answers.
	In the Commons notice has to be given on the Order Paper of such Statements. We see no need for such a provision in this House.
	We propose that Written Ministerial Statements should be placed in the Library as soon as they are received, so that they are available to Members before they appear in the Official Report.

Lord Carter: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, after "That" to insert ", with the omission of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6,".

Lord Carter: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in order to enable the House to make a clear decision regarding the arrangements for Thursday sittings. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House how we have reached the present position. In April last year, the Leader's Group on working practices recommended:
	"On Thursdays, the House should sit at 11 a.m. and adjourn not later than about 7 p.m.".
	On that committee were the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and it was chaired by my late friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. The report was referred to the Procedure Committee—

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the recommendation was that the House should sit for government legislation until 7 o'clock but the House would not adjourn until 9 o'clock so that an Unstarred Question could be taken.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I quoted directly from the report. That is all that it said. I believe that the noble Lord is mixing up the point that I am about to make. The report of the Leader's Group was referred to the Procedure Committee for implementation. The committee interpreted the recommendation of the working group to sit from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m., with the arrangements that we have had for the past year whereby the House sits from 11 a.m. until 1.30 p.m., there is a break from 1.30 to 3 p.m., Starred Questions take place at 3 p.m. and whipped business finishes at 7.30 p.m., followed by an Unstarred Question and the House rising at 9 p.m.
	That arrangement was clearly unsatisfactory. In June this year, I tabled a Starred Question on the subject and suggested that the views of the House should be sought through a questionnaire. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees may remember that, in the exchanges at Question Time, he said that a majority of the Deputy Speakers preferred:
	"the pre-Recess Thursday arrangements whereby the House meets at 11 o'clock for Questions and goes straight through".—[Official Report, 4/6/03; col. 1322.]
	I mention that because of the clear understanding at the time that something resembling the pre-Recess Thursday arrangement would apply if option three in the questionnaire were accepted. As we have heard, the response to the questionnaire was quite clear: 368 Peers voted and there was a majority of 54.3 per cent for starting at 11 a.m. with Questions and for going through until 7 p.m. I have spoken to a number of Peers from all parties who have supported that option. They clearly thought that their vote was for something similar to the pre-Recess Thursday arrangements with no lunch break.
	Once again the Procedure Committee has decided to interpret that result with, in my view, the very confusing recommendation, which is now before the House, that the House should sit on Thursdays without a break when there is a Second Reading, a general debate or a number of short items of business, which are undefined, but that there should be a break if the House is in Committee or is considering a Bill in its later stages. As we have heard, Unstarred Questions will be taken in the lunch break on those occasions.
	Clearly the Procedure Committee was uneasy about its own recommendation as it helpfully indicated how to amend its report if the House did not want a lunch break on certain Thursdays. Equally helpfully, I have tabled the amendment that the Procedure Committee suggested to enable the House to reach a clear decision. I cannot help wondering why the Procedure Committee suggested such an amendment if it were confident that it was properly reflecting the wishes of the clear majority in response to the questionnaire.
	My amendment enables the House, if it wishes, to approve an arrangement that on every Thursday the House will start at 11 a.m. with Questions, go straight through until 5.30 p.m. when whipped business will finish, conclude with an Unstarred Question and rise at 7 p.m. That was the original recommendation of the Leader's Group on working practices. From the questionnaire it was found that that group strongly supported an early start and finish on Thursdays.
	I feel that the proposal of the Procedure Committee is something of a muddle. In my view it goes against the clear wishes of the majority of Peers who responded to the questionnaire. What happens on a Thursday if there is a Statement? The House will have to take the Statement and have a lunch break; it will have to do so because an Unstarred Question will have been tabled for the lunch break. So we shall have a Statement and a lunch break.
	The proposal is illogical. If the House has a Second Reading debate or a general debate on a Thursday, the Front-Benchers are expected to be present for the whole debate. We all know—no one objects—that Front-Benchers must have some refreshment on those occasions. Equally, the same could apply if a later stage of a Bill were being considered. If there are a number of items of business—say, two Third Readings or the completion of one stage of a Bill and progress on another stage, which happens—will there still be a lunch break even though different Front-Benchers will be involved? We have a pre-Recess Thursday tomorrow. The House will sit at 11 a.m., it will start with Questions and will go straight through without a break. If we were to be in Committee or on Report or if we had a Third Reading tomorrow the House would still go through without a break.
	If the Procedure Committee's proposals are accepted on some Thursdays the House will break and on others it will not; on some Thursdays when government business is tabled the House will break and on other Thursdays when government business is tabled the House will not break. If it is a pre-Recess Thursday, the House will go straight through anyway, whatever the business. What a muddle.
	If my amendment is accepted, the Government gain nothing. They will lose half an hour of government business compared with our present arrangements. We have to consider the clear advantage to the House of the whole arrangement that will apply to all Thursdays, with whipped business always finishing at 5.30 p.m. I have spoken to a number of colleagues who have to travel from the north or from Scotland, and such an arrangement would be to their advantage. It would give them a chance to get home on Thursday evenings. However, it is an arrangement which, in my view, a clear majority of the House supported when opinions were sought. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, after "That" to insert ", with the omission of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6,".—(Lord Carter.)

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for introducing his Motion. I hope that we shall not have a long debate on it. There is a great deal of serious business to do, including an important Statement. I regret the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I hope that he withdraws it. If he puts it to a vote I hope that the House will support the conclusions of the Procedure Committee which has made its recommendation, as outlined by the Chairman of Committees.
	The committee report accepts a very substantial change to the way in which we have always carried out business; namely, that Questions should be taken every Thursday at 11 a.m. Many noble Lords are not retired and still work. They have devised their working schedule to ensure that every single morning is free: free of Questions and free of their obligations to the House of Lords. That will now change and as a result a topical question that was kept for a Thursday will now be taken on a Monday.
	The issue before the House is whether there should be a break on Thursdays as there is on every other day when we deal with government legislation. In itself it is not an issue of earth-shattering importance, except to those who are most affected by it; in other words, those on the Front and the Back Benches who actively consider legislation, which is not the majority of the House.
	My view is that that is precisely the kind of matter that should be left to the usual channels to decide, as appropriate. As a former member of the usual channels, I would have hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have agreed with that. Of course, there should be no break when there are Second Readings. There is no dinner break for Second Readings on any other day and there is no muddle and no confusion, so there is absolutely no reason for there to be any confusion on Thursdays. There is nothing complex about it. Likewise Statements will be taken in due course as they are on any other day of the week. But legislation is difficult, it is hard, and those on the Front Bench dealing with amendment after amendment need and deserve some time off, as do Back-Benchers who play a part.
	The questionnaire that was sent out was originally drafted to pose questions about an hour off during the course of the day, but it was deemed by the Procedure Committee to involve far too many options and to be too complicated. Therefore, it was brought down to a minimal and simple level that we could all understand and detailed consideration was left to the Procedure Committee. That is what was done.
	I do not quite understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Does his amendment just concern finishing at 5.30 in the afternoon rather than 7 p.m. or 6.30 p.m.? I cannot believe that it does. As the noble Lord has just said, accepting his amendment reduces the amount of time available for scrutiny of government legislation by half an hour every Thursday. We sit roughly 30 Thursdays a year so we are talking about 15 hours and that is about two-and-a-half days. Will the Government find a way of making up that time or are they embarrassed about the House scrutinising their legislation on the Floor of the House in the way that we do?
	I have long championed the obvious solution to this whole problem of Thursdays, which is to swap Wednesdays and Thursdays. Thursdays could be a general debating day, so we would not have to worry about whether there is a break or not, but in the past that has not found favour. I believe it is a solution to which we should return. I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thinks it is a good idea as well. Surely that would be an infinitely more sensible way of going forward, rather than dealing with the situation in this manner. If that is the view of the House, I hope that the Procedure Committee can return to the matter extremely quickly. In the light of that, I hope that the House will support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and reject the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

Lord Roper: My Lords, while I do not accept the views of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about Wednesdays and Thursdays—and fortunately that issue is not before the House on this occasion—his remarks show the great advantages gained when leaders of political parties have previously served in the "usual channels", and therefore understand the concerns of opposition Front Benches having to deal with legislation on Thursdays.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was perhaps overstating the matter when he said that the current arrangements for Thursdays are clearly unsatisfactory. There are some who feel they are unsatisfactory. They are complicated and not totally satisfactory; there are problems, but inevitably they are a compromise.
	However, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, we have a difficult problem. We have a conflict of interests—a perfectly open one. First, we have the interests of those on opposition Front Benches who deal with legislation in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading, and who would be expected to be on the Bench continuously—unlike the situation, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in a Second Reading or a general debate—from the time consideration of the legislation commences until it ends. Secondly, we have the interests of government Back-Benchers, who are obviously not terribly keen to be whipped here for longer than is necessary. That is a perfectly understandable difference of interests.
	However, I think that the interests of those who have to carry out the task of scrutiny of legislation in detail, of holding the Government to account on their legislative programme, should also be taken into account. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I served on the working practice committee of the former Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
	In that committee, one of the things on which I worked very hard in terms of moving more legislation into Grand Committees was to stop the situation of government Back-Benchers being kept in the House until absurd hours in the evenings because there was a risk that a Division might be taken later. That is why we have the target time of 10 o'clock. But that was part of a package. Now we are seeing—long before we have a chance to review the package as a whole—the process being interrupted and the legitimate position of opposition Front Benches being addressed in this way.
	I have to say that there is no difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on this issue. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, having taken into account the points that have been made, will withdraw his amendment and accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee.

Lord Monson: My Lords, last Thursday we had a very full day and sat for seven hours exactly. We had an important Second Reading debate on the Energy Bill, an important Statement on the Defence White Paper and an Unstarred Question on hepatitis. Despite that, we still rose at the very civilised hour of 7.32 p.m., which I think is perfectly acceptable, and of course we had time for party and Cross-Bench meetings—and dinner as well. Under the proposal, we would have risen at two minutes past six, whether or not the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were accepted, since the Unstarred Question on hepatitis would have been taken in the lunch hour.
	However, we would still be faced with the problem of when to hold the weekly party and Cross-Bench meetings, since I understand that the next week's business is not known until late on Wednesday. Moreover, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were accepted the Government and opposition Front-Bench teams would have no opportunity for lunch, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has pointed out. Unfortunately the status quo is not an option, but if change there must be, the Procedure Committee's recommendation, as it stands, is the lesser of two evils.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that there is much that I can add to the report. Noble Lords have not asked any specific questions regarding my role. I think that it should be left to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to decide what he wishes to do with his amendment.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief as there are some important debates to follow. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. As he correctly says, the debate that has continued for many years about Thursday mornings is over. In fact, we have all agreed that we should start at 11 a.m. with Question Time.
	The noble Lord referred to the "usual channels". Of course they were strongly represented on the Procedure Committee which produced the report. Modesty forbids me saying that the usual channels are not what they used to be.
	The point about Statements is very simple. If we have a lunch break with an Unstarred Question tabled and there is a Statement, we will have a Statement and a lunch break, so the Front Benches will get two breaks and not none. After 10 years on the Front Bench in opposition and five years on the Front Bench in government, I know how it is possible for Ministers and other Front-Benchers to slip out to get some refreshment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roper, said that the package should be considered as a whole. I can only quote what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said when I asked my Starred Question about this matter in June. He said:
	"is the Chairman of Committees aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this matter is separate from the other aspect of the changes introduced last year and could be considered separately by the Procedure Committee".—[Official Report, 4/6/03; col. 1323.]
	The only thing to do is to seek the opinion of the House. We need to make a clear decision on this matter once and for all.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 152.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about timings on the two timed debates, which, I regret, were omitted from the note that noble Lords will have seen. However, none of this will come as any surprise to anyone.
	The first debate on maritime policy is time limited to two and a half hours. That means that, with the exception of the winding-up speech, which can last up to 20 minutes, all speeches should be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes. In the debate on road deaths and casualties, which is again time limited to two and a half hours, with the exception of the opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which may last 15 minutes, and the winding-up speech of my noble friend Lord Davies, which may last 20 minutes, all speeches should be limited to 12 minutes.

vCJD: Blood Transfusion Incident

Lord Warner: My Lords, with permission, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about a blood transfusion incident involving variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). It may assist the House if I begin by setting out the basic facts before discussing the implications.
	"In March 1996, a blood donor, who was at the time free of the signs of variant CJD, donated blood to the National Blood Service. Shortly after that, the donated blood was transfused into a patient who underwent surgery for a serious illness. In continuing my description of the events to the House, I will from now on refer to those individuals as the 'donor' and the 'recipient' of the blood.
	"The donor showed no signs of variant CJD at the time the blood was given, but developed the disease three years later—that is, in 1999—and died from it. The recipient of the blood died in the autumn of this year.
	Initial post-mortem examination of the recipient of the blood showed changes in the brain indicative of CJD. Further examinations and tests of this patient's brain confirmed the diagnosis of variant CJD. The link between the donor and the recipient was first reported to officials in my department on 9th December 2003 at which time the diagnosis of variant CJD in the recipient was still being confirmed.
	"I was first alerted to the developments on Friday 12th December and was briefed by the Chief Medical Officer on Monday and Tuesday this week. Today I am bringing this information to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have given and will give the minimal clinical details of the recipient, because the family has indicated that it wishes to have its privacy respected.
	"In the light of the facts I have outlined, it is therefore possible that the disease was transmitted from donor to recipient by blood transfusion in circumstances where the blood of the donor was infectious three years before the donor developed variant CJD and where the recipient developed variant CJD after a six-and-a-half-year incubation period. This is a possibility, not a proven causal connection, because it is also possible that both individuals separately acquired variant CJD by eating BSE-infected meat or meat products.
	"This is a single incident, and it is possible that both individuals acquired variant CJD by eating infected meat products, but it is impossible to be sure which was the route of infection. However, the possibility of this being transfusion-related cannot be discounted. That is the conclusion of the Chief Medical Officer and experts who report to me.
	"It is because this is the first report from anywhere in the world of the possible transmission of variant CJD from person to person via blood that I thought it right to come to the Dispatch Box to inform the House—even if only on a precautionary basis.
	"This incident was discovered by good surveillance. In 1997 the Department of Health funded the Transfusion Medicine Epidemiology Review study to examine links between all variant CJD cases and any form of blood transfusion. It is through this research study that the association between these two patients was identified. I should also point out that this emphasises the importance of post-mortem examination. Without it we would never have known about these matters. I would like to thank our NHS pathologists for their expertise and constant vigilance.
	"I can inform the House about matters which some will already know. There is as yet no blood test for variant CJD, or for that matter BSE, let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop. So there is no way yet of screening blood donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases.
	"Fortunately, however, a range of precautionary measures have been put in place by the Government since 1997, even though there was at that time no evidence of the risk of person-to-person transmission of the disease via blood. For the benefit and reassurance of the House, it is right briefly to set out the action that has been taken to date and the further action that we now propose.
	"First, since 1997 all cases of variant CJD that are reported to the National CJD Surveillance Unit and diagnosed as having "probable" variant CJD result in a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records. If the patient has given blood, subsequently any stocks of that blood are immediately destroyed.
	"Secondly, on 17th July 1998, acting on expert advice, the Government announced a £70 million programme to remove most of the white cells from blood destined for transfusion. White cells were considered by experts at the time to be a potential source of infection. This process of so-called leuco-depletion was then a highly precautionary measure to reduce what was then a hypothetical source of infectivity. The process of leuco-depletion, that is removal of white blood cells, was implemented by the National Blood Service over time and completed by October 1999.
	"Thirdly, on 12th November 1998, again acting on expert committee advice, the Government announced a £30 million programme to phase out the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products. This was at the time, in the absence of any defined risk, another highly precautionary measure. Therefore, from the end of 1999 all blood products have been made using plasma sourced from the United States of America. To ensure continuity of supply the Department of Health purchased on 17th December 2002 the largest remaining independent US plasma collector, Life Resources Incorporated, as part of our attempt to ensure plasma-related resources were derived from outside the UK.
	"Fourthly, the National Blood Service has informed us that 15 people received donations of blood from donors who subsequently developed variant CJD. Of the 15 individuals, we have been informed that five received blood after leuco-depletion had been implemented, the remainder before. The earliest such transfusion was in 1993 and the latest in 2001. Working with the National Blood Service, the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting these individuals. All will be told about the circumstances of their case and have the opportunity to discuss the risks with an expert counsellor.
	"Many more patients of course, including haemophiliacs, will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from the USA. They will have received products derived from large pools of plasma donated from many thousands of people and thus heavily diluted. The UK-wide CJD Incidents Panel considers the risks for this group to be even lower than for those who received whole blood. It is very difficult to trace all individual recipients of products made from these plasma pools. However, the CJD Incidents Panel will be advising on a case-by-case basis which recipients will need to be contacted as the necessary information becomes available. This group of patients will also have the opportunity for a discussion with an expert on an individual basis. Any person with concerns may ring NHS Direct on 0845 4647.
	"Fifthly, before these events expert groups were already deliberating on whether further measures were required in relation to variant CJD and blood. In October of 2003 our expert committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation advised, on the basis of a risk assessment, that further action, such as stopping people who have received a blood transfusion from giving blood, was not necessary.
	"However, in the light of today's statement, we have asked this committee to look comprehensively at whether further precautionary measures could be taken which would not adversely impact on the safety or availability of blood.
	"Sixthly, it is apparent that much more blood and blood products are used clinically than need to be. There have been many past attempts to reduce the use of blood to situations where it is absolutely needed medically, but these have been only partially successful. I will be asking the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical Royal Colleges and NHS hospitals to address this area of clinical practice. More appropriate blood usage will reduce all the risks associated with blood and will make more effective use of our precious blood supplies.
	"A finding of this kind, albeit one whose full medical significance is still far from clear, inevitably will give rise to concern. It is therefore important that this House and the wider public take account of the wider context in two respects.
	"First, since the events in 1996 approximately 24 million units of blood or blood components have been given to patients in the United Kingdom. Blood transfusion can be a life-saving treatment, but no medical treatment is free of all risks. Indeed, it is an unfortunate fact that already each year approximately 12 people die as a complication of blood transfusion. Many people receiving blood transfusion are already very ill, some in life and death situations.
	"A wide range of measures are routinely used to reduce the risks of transfusion by screening for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C and other infections. For specific high-risk patients, even more detailed screening takes place.
	"These wider measures should be seen in the context of the precautionary action also being taken on variant CJD and a recognition that so far we have only one single report of a possible link between a single donor and a single recipient.
	"We are generally regarded internationally as having a very safe blood service, especially because of our precautionary approach to screening for infection, careful donor selection and the tradition of volunteering in this country, which means that our donors generally have a lower incidence of many viral diseases compared to those in other countries who are paid for their donations.
	"Secondly and finally, as for the wider situation for variant CJD, thankfully we have not so far seen the thousands of cases of variant CJD that some projections suggested. As of 1st December 2003, there have been a cumulative total of 143 cases of variant CJD in the United Kingdom. Over the past three years, the annual number of new cases has fallen each year. However, there should be no complacency. It remains premature to conclude that the epidemic has peaked and any single case of variant CJD is tragic for the patients and families concerned.
	"I hope that my Statement has given the House a clear and accurate account of this finding in the full context in which it needs to be seen. I have asked the Chief Medical Officer to oversee the further work and investigation that is required and to keep me closely informed, and the House may be assured that I will of course keep it informed of any major developments in this area".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is both significant and disturbing. While it was helpful in explaining the facts surrounding the transfusion and the possible transmission of CJD by the donor to the recipient, and in explaining the actions that the Government are taking, one or two questions inevitably arise.
	My first question relates to risk. The Minister sensibly thought to put the scale of the risk from contaminated blood into context and mentioned a number of safeguards already in place. Clearly, we all welcome those. As yet, we are dealing with one possible case of transmission of variant CJD by blood. So far, transmission by this route is only a hypothesis, but there may be a genuine causal link and the Government must act as though there is.
	In the light of that, will the Government seek to commission some computer modelling on the scale of any enhanced risk posed by these findings? On that issue, the Minister mentioned that all probable cases of CJD are subject to a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records to establish whether the person was ever a donor. For every such case, will the question of whether the individual was ever a recipient of blood also be investigated? That is important in advancing our knowledge of the epidemiology. Will the Minister confirm that there is full traceability for all blood donated in the NHS?
	The Statement reminded us that all blood plasma used in the NHS is now sourced in the USA. Will the Minister confirm that no cases of variant CJD have been recorded in the United States?
	On the incidence of variant CJD in this country, I welcome the fact that the statistics do not show an increase over the past few years but show a slight fall. Notwithstanding that, is there a geographic bias or pattern to variant CJD cases recorded in the UK?
	I note that the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting the 15 individuals who received blood donations from donors who subsequently went on to develop variant CJD. To inform them of the possible risk of their developing variant CJD does not seem to me to be an ethically straightforward decision. Some might argue that it would be better for those people not to know because it will only give rise to psychological and emotional pressure over a long time. Clearly those individuals must be prevented from donating blood, but I would have thought that to be a separate issue. Will the Minister comment on that point?
	Finally, the Minister mentioned that the expert committee has been tasked with considering what further safeguards can be put in place. Can that matter conveniently be reported to your Lordships' House by means of an inspired Written Answer in Hansard? It would be helpful if the Minister could take that suggestion away with him.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the Secretary of State for bringing these facts and findings to both Houses so speedily. I, too, welcome many aspects of the Statement, in particular the fact that we are not faced with an epidemic of vCJD. However, the Minister having said that the Government are acting in accordance with the precautionary principle, I feel bound to ask questions which probe whether it does in fact constitute a full precautionary principle.
	The Minister will be aware that during the past year I have asked many questions on blood safety and I feel that many questions arise out of today's Statement. First, some factual questions arise in following up the incident. Have other people who have received blood from the same donor been followed up? The Minister said that 15 people who had received blood, which I presume was from another set of donors, have subsequently developed vCJD. Is there an automatic record-keeping process to monitor follow-up whenever a case of vCJD is identified, indicating whether the person has donated blood?
	Many of us welcome the Government's commitment to imported fresh frozen plasma for young babies born after 1996. However, it appears that that is not universally available and administered across the UK, despite the announcement made some considerable time ago. It will be useful to have the Minister's clarification on that.
	It would also be useful if the Minister could expand on the availability of a vCJD blood test. Not only is such availability of great importance, as is research and government funding, but also the contingencies the Government are making. If such a test becomes available, what will happen as regards public perception? Will blood donors be reluctant to submit themselves to such tests? What precedents can we rely on, and what contingency plans is the National Blood Authority making in the circumstances?
	It is peculiar that we are dealing with a panel report that is more than two years old. I have not had time to probe the matter since the Statement was announced, but it seems peculiar that it has taken two years for the report to come to light.
	Increasingly, in many countries, people are entitled to store their own blood in blood banks against the contingency that they may need it in future. That is an eminently sensible procedure that gives people the satisfaction of knowing that their own blood is being transfused to them. It would be useful if the Minister expressed a view on that.
	My final point is the key thrust of my comments today. Virtually every question that I have raised since last September has been on viral inactivation of fresh frozen plasma. I have asked around 30 questions. On each occasion the Minister, his predecessors, and indeed the Minister's surrogate, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, responded that viral inactivation was not necessary. The implicit reply has been that it is not proportionate to inactivate fresh frozen plasma virally. We have seen contingencies—the use of US blood and other ways of dealing with the issue. Taking out white blood cells is another such solution. I recognise that there are two infections that one cannot get rid of by viral inactivation, but the thrust of my questions has been that viral inactivation is almost foolproof and is an absolute necessity. That is where I differ from the Government in regard to the precautionary principle. A true precautionary operation would be to ensure that we virally inactivated our fresh frozen plasma.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front-Bench spokesmen for their thoughtful responses on this particularly difficult issue.
	In response partly to the noble Earl's question about computer modelling and other questions from both noble Lords, I should say that the CJD Incidents Panel has gathered information and tried to make a complicated risk analysis of people who have been transfused and a much larger pool of plasma recipients. Plasma is a pooled product; it comes from a much wider pool of people who have given blood. The Government's medical and scientific advice is that pooling reduces by dilution the risks to recipients. The highest risk applies to direct blood transfusion rather than use of plasma products.
	The CJD Incidents Panel has used the information that it has on people who may have had a transfusion of blood or blood plasma from someone subsequently found to have variant CJD in order to look at the risks for that patient. That risk is changing after leuco-depletion. We have two groups of people in the risk analysis: those who preceded the 1999 changes of leuco-depletion and the removal of white cells, and those who did not. This is an extraordinarily complicated risk analysis to set out in detail to noble Lords in the circumstances, but I will be happy to write to noble Lords to outline in more detail the basis of the analysis.
	I cannot give the number of recipients who were also donors, but I will look into the matter and, if the figure is known from this kind of risk analysis, I shall include it in my response. There is full traceability. The fact that we can make a Statement about the 15 people demonstrates our capacity to track people in those circumstances. It is a trickier job in relation to the much larger numbers of plasma recipients, but the CJD Incidents Panel is working on that.
	The noble Earl asked about the ethically difficult decision whether to tell the 15 people involved. It is a difficult issue, but if the risk analysis suggests that an individual is highly unlikely to be at risk, it may be decided not to make the information known. However, at present, the starting premise is that people probably ought to be told and will want to know about the risks to which they may be vulnerable. Work to track down the individuals is going on with that intention.
	As I said, we have put a lot of work into working with expert committees and seeking expert advice. It will be up to those committees to advise the Government on some of the extra safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. I am certainly willing to assure noble Lords that, as more information in this area becomes available to us, we wish to put it into the public arena by such means as the noble Earl proposed—an arranged Written Answer. The Government certainly wish, as I hope the Statement indicates, to disclose fully any new information about safeguards that can be taken.
	I must respond to several issues that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised. As I understand it, one other person received blood from that same donor, but that person subsequently died—a long time ago, before we knew that that person was at risk and before the donor died. We have no additional knowledge other than that there was another case.
	I am not sufficiently expert to know the pros and cons of people storing their own blood, but I will be happy to look into the matter and to write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
	Virally inactivating plasma is one of the precautionary issues that the Government will study, and on which we are seeking expert opinion. When we have that expert opinion, we will make the information available.
	In the time available, I have tried to respond to as many questions as possible. I was asked why it has taken two years to publish the report. The matter was referred to the CJD Incidents Panel, which has conducted a very complicated risk analysis. The panel returned with the results only recently, and we put that information in the public arena as quickly as possible when we knew about the episode.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that report. I wish to ask him about how the Health Protection Agency works with the National Blood Service. As the Minister said, it is important that we have a broader review on the use of blood. What steps are being taken to ensure that the clinical guidelines for the use of blood and blood products are implemented? Is there any monitoring? Will there be an overall review of other types of infection and reactions from blood products that can take place through transfusion?

Lord Warner: My Lords, before I respond to that point, I forgot to answer a question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to which I have the answer. No cases of variant CJD have been found in the USA. I hope that that reassures him.
	On the measures that the Government have taken to ensure blood safety, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that we have taken a number of precautionary measures. All cases of CJD are reported to the CJD Surveillance Unit. If the patient has been given blood, blood stocks are destroyed. I have already mentioned the £70 million programme to remove white cells from blood for transfusion and the steps taken in 1998 to phase out the use of UK-sourced plasma and all blood products made using US-sourced plasma from October 1999.
	The advice that I have been given is that the arrangements for monitoring blood safety are rigorous and, in the Government's view, adequate. However, one is always looking for new precautionary measures that might make matters safer. As I said in my Statement, that is a matter on which the Government will be seeking further expert advice.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information about a case which may involve transmission from a blood transfusion. Will he ensure that we have regular information not only on the number of suspected and actual cases of new variant CJD, but on the trends in the number of cases of BSE in the cattle herd, with appropriate commentary? That is important. As we gradually reduce BSE cases in cattle to zero, which is certainly possible, we regain control of the human risks of new variant CJD, including the possible risks to which the Statement refers. The whole picture should always include the state of BSE in cattle as well as the risks of new variant CJD.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that that is right and that my noble friends in Defra will consider the point. The noble Lord is certainly right that, as we take BSE out of the herd, the risk to humans is reduced.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as blood products which infected haemophiliacs with HIV came from the USA, is the Minister confident that something else nasty may not come again from imported blood from the USA? Is he aware that there are ways of cleaning blood to make it safer? I know that that is done in Vienna, in Austria. Will the Minister look into that? Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about people using their own blood, I am sure that, when this Statement goes out into the wider community, people will want to know that information.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I take note of the point made by the noble Baroness about people storing and having access to their own blood. As I said, I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and make sure that other noble Lords have copies of that letter. There are controls over blood sourced from the USA. Plasma for fractionation—for albumin and factor 8—is taken from volunteer donors. Although it has occasionally been suggested, the donor population does not include any jail inmates. Additional testing over and above that carried out on UK plasma is applied in this case.
	Fresh frozen plasma for children born after January 1996 is taken from volunteer donors. Donations are subject to additional testing over and above that carried out on UK donations and are then treated with methylene blue which inactivates most viruses that are transfusion transmissible such as HIV and hepatitis B and C.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that everyone is grateful to my noble friend and his department for coming forward with this Statement so early. Obviously, however, there is great uncertainty, and that uncertainty is likely to remain when there are so many questions about transmission routes for variant CJD and the course of the disease itself. However, what is not uncertain is that, every day of the year, blood transfusions save lives in the health service. What is being done to reassure potential donors and those receiving blood products about the security of the service and the effects of the decision on leucodepletion, for example, in order to minimise the risks which we all recognise cannot be totally eliminated?
	On a separate point, I recognise that variant CJD is a very different disease from sporadic CJD or other variants. However, if I heard the beginning of the Statement correctly, there are long periods before symptoms become apparent in either the possible donor or donee. Has that sparked a concern that we need to examine the donation records of those suffering from CJD rather than variant CJD?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have a direct answer to the last point. However, when I write to the noble Baroness, I shall certainly ensure that that issue is being examined through the CJD Incidents Panel.
	On the security of blood donations, as I have been trying to say, we have to be open while at the same time maintaining some balance in the information and interpretation of the information provided. We do not want to do anything to drive down the numbers of people donating blood. We need, give or take, about 9,000 donations a day. The donor base is decreasing, so it is very important that we reassure people in this area. We want people to give blood and for donations to continue. That is why I also said in my Statement that the Government are concerned and will be working with the Royal Colleges and others to see whether we can ensure that blood is used only when absolutely medically necessary. That is a matter of clinical practice that must be taken forward with the profession.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, following on from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton, is it not the case that the causal link between BSE and CJD is still an hypothesis? If my assumption is correct, what research is still being conducted in order to establish any causal link, or a cause of BSE and CJD that may be similar in both creatures but is not a direct link?
	Secondly, the Minister made much of the risk analysis, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said a great deal about the precautionary principle on which I support him entirely. However, does not the Minister agree that the precautionary principle should also be exercised with a view to cost-benefit analysis? If we compare the millions and millions of pounds that have been poured into research into a disease which has caused 143 deaths to date, compared with the 5,000 deaths a year from hospital-acquired infections, should we not look at the proportionate application of the precautionary principle?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I had hoped that what I said in my Statement and my subsequent answers would suggest that we are being proportionate in our response. We rely on expert analysis and advice. We look to the CJD Incidents Panel to interpret extremely complicated information and to give expert scientific advice on which we can act. I have no reason to think that it does not also act proportionately in its risk analysis. As I said, I will write more widely to noble Lords about the detail of that risk analysis.
	I am not sure that I can give the noble Countess a detailed explanation on the subject of BSE in the way that she asked for. However, I am happy to look into the matter and write to her with, I hope, some reassurance.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the Minister assured us that he would ask the medical profession to be sure that it did not use blood unnecessarily. I must point out that the medical profession has always had that policy. We never use blood unless it is absolutely necessary. Many of the medical professionals in England are Scots, and I assure the Minister that we never waste anything.

Lord Warner: My Lords, to avoid doubt, I must stress the point that I made in the Statement, without making any adverse remarks about Scots or others. In the Statement, I said that my right honourable friend would ask the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical Royal Colleges and NHS hospitals to address clinical practice with regard to the unnecessary use of blood. That is an important issue, and concerns have been expressed about it. We have listened to the advice of the Chief Medical Officer on the matter.

Maritime Policy

The Earl of Caithness: rose to call attention to the opportunities to the United Kingdom that a comprehensive maritime policy would bring; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, as I am back in the maritime world, I must first declare my interest: I am an adviser to an American company that advises, among other things, on ports and the handling of freight.
	This will be a wide-ranging debate, and I shall focus on three issues. The first is security. In December 2002, the International Maritime Organization adopted new regulations to enhance maritime security by adopting the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, known as ISPS. The UK was involved in its construction, so there is no excuse that we did not know what was going to happen. The code comes into force on 1st July next year, only some six months away. How ready is the UK, with its tradition and reputation for high standards, to meet the challenge?
	I will take shipping first. The international ship security certificate is essential, if a vessel is to trade. I understand that, so far, only two or three ships have been security certified out of a fleet of more than 500. Does the Minister believe that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the resources and expertise to complete the work in time? Can he tell me what happens if a British flag vessel is searched under port state control powers and the certificate is found to be flawed? Will the Government, who are responsible through the MCA for issuing the certificate, compensate the businesses, shippers, insurers and ship owners who will suffer financially from such a situation?
	At ports, a different organisation—Transec—carries out the validations to ensure that ports comply with the code. The Government have a direct responsibility for port facilities, each of which must be assessed to comply with the new standards in the next six months. If they do not comply, or their compliance is fudged, overseas shippers, the insurance industry and marine financing will lose confidence in British ports, and our maritime trade will suffer grievously.
	There is a great deal of concern among port facility operators, who have been told by Transec to do nothing until they are inspected. Many are still waiting, and there is precious little time for them to make good any recommendations. In contrast, the port of Antwerp is, with 130 port facilities—and, in fact, all the ports in Belgium are—well ahead in terms of preparation and compliance. The later the inspections are left, the less negotiating power operators will have with suppliers because of time constraints and because so many of them will want the same equipment by a certain date. Prices will inevitably rise, and the consumer will be penalised. Is it not the case that the Government have severely underestimated the resources and capabilities needed to carry out such vital work? Why have the Government not issued clear guidance and a timetable to port operators in the past 12 months? Why have the Government not delegated the inspection of both ships and ports to the private sector?
	We all saw the consequences for Pan Am of the tragic events over Lockerbie, involving Pan Am flight 103. The Government are playing fast and loose with Britain's reputation, Britain's fleet and Britain's financial and insurance institutions on a matter as important as security.
	I turn briefly to ocean liners. The conferences of the past have been replaced by discussion arrangements, but operators are allowed to co-ordinate sailings and landside activities. They are still protected through EC regulation 4056/86, which gives them anti-trust immunity. That is under discussion again in Brussels, and I would like the Minister to tell us what the UK's position is. Does he not agree that it is time to forbid that anomaly and to bring them into the real world in which others operate, for the benefit of our industry and commerce?
	I move on to a key missing ingredient of maritime policy for the UK: how to react to the opportunities that increased containerisation has brought. Transport policy is heavily geared to road and railways, with aviation increasingly mentioned. When do we hear the words "maritime policy" spoken, let alone hear a policy enunciated? The Government's policy in the transport 10-year plan, published in 2000, proposed a target figure of £180 billion in public and private sector investment over the decade from 2001–02 to 2010–11. It is an interesting document, but it says nothing about the maritime sector. Our lifeline transport sector is the pariah, when it comes to policy. A comprehensive policy is vital to the UK. It has been made harder to achieve—but not impossible—by devolution, as responsibility for the ports has, basically, been devolved although shipping policy remains with the UK Government. Any policy must include both.
	Why is a policy necessary? We are unlike any other major economy in that about 95 per cent of our trade by weight arrives or leaves by ship. Two thirds of seaborne trade is containerised. Thus, every one of us is affected every day of our life by that dependence on the sea. However, as long as there are goods in the shops when we want them, few people care. There is a growing realisation that that laissez-faire attitude is no longer acceptable. Among those who feel that more should be done are those who came together recently to form the Scottish Shipping Initiative, of which I have the honour to be the honorary patron. Its recent conference brought together a wide range of interests to consider the way ahead, as well as the problems and the opportunities facing us.
	There are two relatively recent government publications concerning the maritime sector: British shipping: Charting a new course and Modern ports: A UK policy. They are glitzy titles for papers that produce little that is new and show how blinkered the Government are by old-fashioned institutional thinking. I admit that I thought the same when I was Minister of Shipping 10 years ago, so what has happened since then to make me change my mind? I suggest five factors. Then, ocean liners dominated discussion of ocean shipping. Shippers saw the industry as run by cartels and anti-competitive. Change started when the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which undermined carrier conferences, became law in the United States in 1998. In addition, the European Shippers' Council and others interested in the movement of goods, have been pushing for—and obtaining—some reform through the European Commission.
	Secondly, due mostly to that economic dynamo, China, world container traffic has been growing at 8 to 10 per cent per annum over the past decade, and that looks set to continue. That has changed and will continue to change the size of ships, which, 10 years ago, carried a maximum of 4,000 TEU containers but now carry 8,000. Only two ports in the UK, Felixstowe and Southampton, can handle such big vessels, and they need high tides to do so. However, those ports are already congested and out of capacity.
	Fourthly, there is an allocation of EU money to assist short sea initiatives and ports, but the Government will not apply for it. Fifthly, the Government have changed the emphasis of their policy from competition and deregulation to sustainability, environmental protection, integration between modes and improved regional and local guidelines. The aim of sustainable distribution was expressed as follows:
	"To ensure the future development of the distribution industry does not compromise the future needs of our society, economy and environment".
	They are fine words, which I applaud, but no action. However, a maritime policy is just the ingredient that the Government need to help them attain their objective.
	What matters to our manufacturers and retailers is reliability of delivery. That is more important than speed and erratic timings. With Felixstowe and Southampton so congested, shippers cannot guarantee deliveries. Thus, extra costs are being built into the supply chain and inefficiencies created, for which the consumer pays. There is a distinct threat of congestion charging by the shipping lines for visiting ports in the south-east. It is no longer fanciful to envisage the UK having to rely entirely on feeder services from continental Europe to supply our import and export traffic as shipping lines are already moving to continental ports.
	If that trend grows, the Government will be guilty of letting Britain lose its place in world trade. Let us not forget that from being a world leader, the UK does not have representation in ownership of the top containerised shipping lines other than the Anglo-Dutch carrier P&O/Nedlloyd, and that is up for sale.
	We rely too heavily on lorries to move containers on our roads that are increasingly congested. The cost to move a container by road is up to £1.50 per mile. That will increase as working hours directives continue to limit drivers' hours. Given that, it is inevitable that the cost of running a business increases the further one is away from Felixstowe and Southampton. A container costs about £150 more to deliver to the central belt of Scotland than to the south-east of England. That sum increases to about £350 to move it to Caithness. Our businesses are being penalised due to the current policy.
	So could we do better by rail? A little, but not much. Our rail system is designed for passengers, not freight. It would be political suicide for the Government to give freight preference over passengers. Just imagine the headlines if passengers had to wait many hours, if not days, as containers do now at Southampton, to be allowed to use the sparse number of rail services. Later in the supply chain they usually end up on roads, as few British manufacturers have a policy to rail connect their factories.
	How can we overcome that dilemma? In order to ease the congestion, Southampton has submitted a planning application at Dibden Bay and there is an application for a London gateway port that will require at least tens of millions of pounds to be spent on dredging alone in order to accommodate the new vessels. Further applications are likely at Harwich and Felixstowe. However, even if the capacity constraints are alleviated in the south-east, the main problem will not go away. We will just have even more containers arriving at the same time to go on to lorries and to create even more congestion. A compounding factor is the shortage of HGV drivers. We are 50,000 drivers short, but that is not just a UK problem. It is a growing world-wide problem. So that most vital of matters to our businesses—reliability of timing—will just get worse, as will noise and pollution.
	So what is the alternative? The Government must become proactive. The private sector alone cannot, nor should not, be relied on to safeguard the interests of UK plc. We do not allow it for road and rail, so why in the maritime sector? We have to look for realistic alternatives to keep our position and freedom to trade outside of the EU by ensuring that our ports can support the bulk of our industry, which is in the Midlands and the north of the country. By introducing bigger ports in those regions, we can lower our inbound and outbound transport costs, which will help to make us more competitive in world markets.
	The UK is unique in its attitude to ports. We have private ports, trust ports and local authority ports, none of which gets taxpayers' help. On the Continent, that is unheard of and they think that we are crazy. They are right. Their governments help their ports in the same way as their roads and railways. Can one seriously imagine Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and Hamburg not receiving financial aid? Part of the reason that they do so is due to their strategic importance to their countries. How much more that logic applies to us where we have no land borders.
	Given our island status, the number of ports that we have, the changes in shipping patterns, the congestion on our road and rail systems, with the environmental damage that causes, and the subsidised competition in Europe, is it right to let Hutchison, ABP and P&O in the overcrowded south-east or Hunterston and Scapa Flow in Scotland slog it out to try to provide the container capacity that we need, without a sensible framework in which to operate? We need the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree that in future the major container ports will be primarily transhipment terminals for short sea shipping. That is often seen as just relating to the minor bulks, such as gravel and small tankers.
	However, at Felixstowe, it is estimated that 35 per cent of container trade is already transhipped. EU and taxpayers' money will have to be spent at a number of feeder ports so that they can readjust their business, but that money would be better utilised there than the huge amounts that are being spent on the roads. Not only will such a policy mean that our goods are moved more reliably, cost effectively and in a more environmentally friendly way, but it will also bring benefits to our economy, as we can be the gateway to service Europe's needs.
	There are a large number of ports in Scandinavia, Russia and northern Europe to which the modern vessels cannot gain access. Due to our geographical location, we, rather than our continental competitors, can be the hub for them. We are blessed with natural deep-water facilities without having to dredge and these should be utilised for the benefit of UK plc. That requires a complete rethink in the Government's strategy, but if the Minister is serious in wishing to minimise congestion, reduce the freight intensity of economic growth, make better use of transport infrastructure, minimise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and reduce noise and disturbance from freight movements—all laudable Government objectives—the only way forward is through a short sea and coastal distribution policy with modern vessels like the "fast ferries" that are used in the Baltic. We would then start to reduce the long-standing market distortions created and perpetuated through ongoing public sector investment of land transport infrastructure with maritime transport virtually excluded from the public funding process.
	I know that the Minister cannot possibly comment on the planning applications before the Government. I would not expect him to and that is not what I want anyway. I want a radical rethink on the whole subject and for the Government to have a vision for the UK by seizing this opportunity to chart a new way forward. In the UK's transport policy, ports are the essential links. The Government's policy makes them the weakest link. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is quite a long time since I was on the Opposition Benches as the transport spokesman. At that time, I had the pleasure of crossing swords with the noble Earl quite often, although not often enough. Little has changed. For the most part, the same old lags are still around.

Lord Berkeley: Speak for yourself!

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, they were around about 15 years ago. My noble friend was then a very well researched supporter of mine, and he remains very well researched today. But I am sorry that the noble Earl was so curmudgeonly about the Government's shipping policy, particularly as he presided over an unprecedented collapse of British shipping when he was the Minister for shipping in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I am glad that he has promoted a debate about shipping today.
	I should declare that between 1974 and 1979 I was Shipping Minister. In fact, I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Companies, Aviation and Shipping. Perhaps I was fortunate in not being the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Companies, Aviation and Tourism, when I would have had the acronym of PUSSCAT. I was also the commissioner in Europe for, among other things, transport, which included shipping.
	When I was the Minister responsible for shipping some 30 years ago, the merchant marine of this country was second only to the Greek merchant fleet. Today, although there has been some improvement so far as the merchant fleet is concerned, regrettably we are still not as strong as we were. In my submission, British merchant shipping matters—which include the skills, experience and expertise of our seamen and officers—are of great importance. However, nothing whatsoever was said by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about them. He said not a word, although I think that these matters are vitally important.
	In November the Prime Minister, no less, acknowledged the significance to this island of shipping. But it is not possible to subtract from the position of our fleet the supply of maritime skills and experience to which I have alluded. Part and parcel of all that lies in the education that could be gleaned from maritime schools which, with government support, were an intrinsic part of the whole equation. Is it really too late to hope that, after so long, it might be possible to revive them?
	What we have now is some repositioning of the strength of ships sailing under the Red Ensign, but we still operate under the handicap of not pursuing sufficiently the other objective which I have tried to outline. For virtually a decade we have had more ships and tonnage sailing under the Red Ensign—60 per cent more than in 1997—but despite that, we have fewer British seafarers. We have seen a reduction of as much as 10 per cent, although some may say that the percentage is even higher, since that year. The gap has been filled by foreign seafarers. More than three quarters of junior officers are foreign nationals. Only around half of all chief engineers and one third of ships' masters are British. I earnestly hope that the Government are far from satisfied with that situation and I should like to hear from the Minister how they propose to address it.
	It is not sufficient to be able to laud the fact that there has been an increase in tonnage under the United Kingdom flag. What would happen in an emergency? We hope that one will never happen, but it may. Indeed, we do not plan our defence position on the thesis that "it may never occur". The skills exemplified by experienced seafarers are necessary. They are needed to maintain the safe operation of ships as they go about their duties at sea. They are necessary to ensure that maritime services and industries on land are able to function well. Let us never forget that overseas earnings are boosted by something like £1 billion a year by the efforts of those industries.
	In my submission, merely to promote the value of the Red Ensign is insufficient. We have to secure the employment and skills of our seafarers, just as John Prescott, a good friend of mine, argued for five years ago when he launched the White Paper, Charting a new course, comprising some 33 policies to achieve those aims. That is why the Government must act now, before it is too late, in particular as regards the short-sea shipping sector. They must act in the light of the determination of P&O Ferries to cut jobs by no less than 60 per cent. Unhappily, it does not stop there. Shipping lines such as Global Marine Systems, IMT Gearbulk Lines, Hoverspeed, Fishers, Pacific Nuclear Transport, Golden Sun Cruises, DFDS Seaways and Maersk have made similar grisly announcements. More than 1,000 seafarers' jobs have gone.
	Is there not something entirely inconsistent and odd about companies receiving benefits under the tonnage tax scheme feeling no obligation whatsoever to employ and train British seafarers? We have a clear duty to see to it that we enhance our maritime skills and increase our maritime resources. Are the present Government able and willing to reassure the nation on this score?
	The noble Earl has performed a great service tonight. We do not often debate shipping, but in my view it is vitally important that we do so.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this debate in the ballot, the more so since he succeeded in being drawn from the hat in competition with my Motion on sport and recreation policy. Nevertheless, through his ingenuity of specifying "maritime" as opposed to shipping policy, I find myself in the fortunate position of being in order when addressing your Lordships on the subject of sport and recreational activity in our coastal waters around the United Kingdom.
	I do so because the level of sporting use of the sea is low for a country with such a remarkable resource available to so many people living in our seaside towns. Indeed, the challenges faced by clubs, schools and governing bodies seeking to use our coastal waters are considerable. Real opportunity is to be found in a very special relationship—the co-operation demonstrated between schools, governing bodies, clubs and local authorities in our seaside towns and their catchment areas. The need to recognise the sea as a major sporting resource is all the more important given that the level of participation in sport and recreation is, according to my research and relative to the size of the population, lower than it has ever been in the recorded history of the past 200 years.
	In a Parliamentary Answer 10 days ago, the Government admitted that they are overseeing a generation in our schools where participation in school sport has declined to the position where barely a third of our five to 16 year-olds spend a minimum two hours on PE and school sport. That is not two hours a day; it is two hours each week. No wonder we face the problem of obesity.
	I call on the Government to introduce a new national coastal sports policy to transform participation among our schoolchildren living by the sea through the direct co-operation of clubs, governing bodies, local authorities and schools.
	But today's debate goes wider than schools for there are in the United Kingdom a number of sports which have a vested interest in the maritime policy adopted by the Government. Of these the most significant are angling and sailing. Angling has the highest participation of any sport in the United Kingdom. Sea angling alone has in excess of 1 million regular participants. Sailing and the other water sports which fall under the umbrella of the Royal Yachting Association, such as windsurfing and water-skiing, are also extremely popular both at recreational and competitive levels.
	But we should not limit ourselves to these sports alone. The surfing community plays a very active and highly positive role both in community life through the Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain and on the environmental front through organisations such as the commendable Surfers Against Sewage. Their concerns must not be overlooked, nor those of the coastal rowing clubs and the Channel Swimming Association, or any of the many smaller sporting associations and numerous local seaside-located clubs with a vested interest in maritime policy.
	The perception in some quarters is that the Government are attempting to push aside or smother in red tape sports which are, by all accounts, net contributors to their local societies. I should like to address some of their concerns.
	There are more than 350,000 active sailors throughout the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Royal Yachting Association has been held up consistently as an example of how a sport should be run. Minimal regulation, good organisation and responsible education programmes for participants have meant that sailing in the UK is in fine fettle. This is reflected both in participation levels and also in the regular success of sailors such as Ben Ainslie, Shirley Robertson and Iain Percy at World and Olympic levels. Furthermore, let us not forget the wonderful courage and achievements of Tracy Edwards and Ellen McArthur, to name but two.
	There are, however, worrying signs emanating from the corridors of Whitehall. The Government are finding it hard to resist requiring the sport to adopt many additional legislative measures, increased taxation and bureaucracy—for example, automatic identification systems for recreational craft; light dues for pleasure boaters; compulsory testing and regulation of all vessels. For all the merits and overriding importance of health and safety measures—which no one on either side of the House doubts—they must be practical and reasonable. Britain has an outstanding recreational boating safety record. This record is maintained, by and large, by the Royal Yachting Association's comparative independence and its commitment to education. Governments past and present have consistently reiterated their support for the RYA policy of "education not legislation". I seek assurance that this policy will continue.
	As I mentioned earlier, sea angling is immensely popular. The Government Strategy Unit estimates that its contribution to the economy—and largely to the coastal and rural economy—is more than £1 billion per year. The Labour Party appeared to recognise the significance of sea angling in its much vaunted Anglers' Charter published in 1997. Yet this year the National Federation of Sea Anglers has been largely ignored by government in discussions regarding the use of funds to promote participation. Surely a sport which brings so much to society should be rewarded and encouraged rather than sidelined?
	From a political perspective, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether discussions between Defra and the DCMS as to how recreational and commercial angling should be prioritised have been resolved. Where does the sport of sea angling fit best in the relationship between these two government departments and what steps are being taken to ensure greater co-operation between them on matters involving sea angling?
	Surfing is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, with between a quarter of a million and half a million regular participants. Yet, despite this, the British Surfing Association has been unable to secure funding support except through hard fought yet admirable attempts to acquire limited sponsorship. However, if we are to look to increased participation from among local coastal communities, build links with schools and local authorities, ensure inclusion and encourage those youngsters who could be involved in maritime sports to do so rather than to drop out in our coastal towns, policy initiatives with government—from sea angling to sailing and surfing—should be reviewed and appropriate funding secured from the sports funding agencies.
	The biggest issue that the British Surfing Association is facing at present concerns the licensing of surf schools. Currently anyone can set up a surf school, leaving the door open for unqualified instructors to put the safety of young holidaymakers at risk. The BSA is doing everything possible to prevent this from occurring. It has its own system of accreditation for qualified instructors and has successfully lobbied local authorities in Cornwall to introduce a licensing system. For this fine campaign it has received no support from government.
	The Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain is a great example of the good work being done by smaller sporting authorities around the country.

Lord Patten: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for pointing out to the House—and certainly educating me—that surfing, which is a growing and extremely popular sport, is particularly valuable in dealing with youngsters who suffer from problems of social exclusion in many of our seaside towns—where, as your Lordships will appreciate, there are considerable problems of poverty and not enough to do for youngsters, particularly during those long summer months.
	Can my noble friend educate me a little further and suggest why the Government seem to be so biased against surfing and so disinclined to support such a popular and growing sport which promotes inclusion? Why are they being so exclusive towards it?

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in replying, perhaps I may commend my noble friend. For many years now he has been passionately concerned about how we can get young people involved in wider participation in sport rather than only in elite development. What worries me about government policy in this context is that it seems to be heading in the wrong direction. The best example of that recently is the priority sports list, under which limited resources are going to a small number of big sports rather than to a wider base of support for the organisations to which I have referred.
	My noble friend is right about many of our coastal towns. If one takes Brighton as an example—the Minister knows more about Brighton than anyone in the Chamber today—he will attest to the fact that in the locality where I live, between Folkestone and Hythe, there is huge deprivation in those communities, as there is in parts of Brighton and in Dover more than anywhere.
	We need to engage with such youngsters and we have a fabulous resource with which to do so. We have in the sea a fabulous resource for sport and recreation to enable us to bring them off the streets—away from deprivation and away from a life without hope—and into sport. I am asking the Government today, in developing a policy for sports associated with the sea, to recognise this principle and to sit down with the local authorities, the clubs and the schools and to build hope for those youngsters through a policy which engages the clubs and governing bodies to which I have referred.
	My noble friend intervened when I was referring to a good example—the Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain. Not only does that organisation have many members and a strong local base of more than 80 clubs, it has also an important social role to play. Since 1964 it has made more than 22,000 rescues, saving at least 45 lives a year. It also trains the Royal National Lifeboat Institution beach rescue guards. It undertakes that function while at the same time being highly successful in elite competition. I pay tribute to the British surf life saving team; it is ranked fourth in the world. Rugby Union is not the only sport in which we have recently beaten Australia in Australia. At the 2003 European championships, the British surf life saving team also won 15 gold, nine silver and four bronze medals.
	Yet despite all this work, including the social work that my noble friend's intervention led us to debate, and the elite performance of that sporting governing body, the SLSA has just been informed that its £22,000 of Exchequer funding has to be cut to £7,500. Furthermore, in 2005, Sport England will withdraw even this token donation because surf life saving, as I mentioned a moment ago, has been excluded from the priority sports list. I hope that your Lordships on all sides of the House will recognise that that is patently unacceptable.
	Of paramount relevance, however, to all these sports and concerns is the quality of the water, in which more than 3 million water sports enthusiasts, excluding casual bathers, are expected to practise their activities. The cleanliness of sea water is currently regulated by the 1976 bathing water directive. Yet in too many areas, the levels of pollution are unsatisfactory and need addressing by the Government.
	At least 5 million people in the United Kingdom use the sea to enjoy sport. The sports concerned all have a great deal to offer society, whether it be through improving the local economy, helping to keep fellow bathers safe, supporting education, inclusion and awareness programmes, and giving opportunities to young and older generations alike.
	The concerns and requests made by governing bodies and brought to the attention of the House today are all eminently reasonable. All they ask for is due consideration from those government agencies vested with the responsibility to direct supporting functions to their activities. They want a closer, more productive relationship between the relevant government departments and agencies, reasonable respect for and recognition of their views and a clean, well maintained maritime environment in which to enjoy their pursuits.
	Currently, the granting of these modest requests seems to be a lifetime away, and I urge the Government to take immediate steps to establish a new, comprehensive and, above all, fair policy for maritime sports in this country.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I also very much welcome the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in raising this important matter. It is very good to hear the word "maritime" in this House. It is an unfortunate fact that United Kingdom shipping and seafaring currently have a very low profile, especially away from coastal areas. It is easy for far too many to forget not just our maritime heritage but also the dependence on the sea that we still have today. So awareness of maritime issues can often be limited to a negative focus on loss of life and on pollution, which can quickly undermine the very positive outlook of our maritime community. This "sea blindness" masks the fact that the entire maritime industry is, and will continue to be, essential to the United Kingdom economy.
	Facts and statistics underlining this dependence have already been bandied around, but let me add a couple more, possibly of a slightly more upbeat nature. The UK today boasts the largest maritime sector in Europe, with a turnover of £37 billion—twice the size of aerospace or agriculture—and employs some 250,000 people. The maritime sector makes a massive contribution to the economy. We have heard that 95 per cent of British imports and exports go by sea, while 50 million people travel from, to and around the UK by ferry each year. Each day there are more ship moves in the Dover Straits—the busiest in the world—than there are air traffic moves at Heathrow. London is the world centre for maritime financial and legal services, and the Royal Navy is the second strongest navy in the world.
	I am sure that a comprehensive maritime policy would, in addition to other benefits, allow this "sea blindness" to be addressed coherently. It would be a policy with which I am sure the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy would wish to be associated.
	The Royal Navy is, of course, charged with contributing to the promotion of international stability and freedom upon which our national security and prosperity depend. Given our dependence on sea trade, this involves, among other things, looking to the maintenance of the freedom of movement on the high seas as well as countering crime there.
	The Ministry of Defence acts in concert with other government departments in exploring ways of combating crime on the high seas. It actively engages with national and international defence intelligence and maritime security communities, as well as commercial shipping and other organisations, to promote wider awareness, understanding and co-operation. It also produces the Worldwide Threat to Shipping report, which is published on the Internet.
	It is for these high level reasons that I am sure the Royal Navy would have a clear interest in the theme and the outcome of this debate, but it might be helpful if I gave some practical examples of why this might be. Let me take the event of an unlawful act, where a Royal Navy warship would intervene if a UK entitled ship were involved, or if Her Majesty's Government had agreed to a request for assistance by the vessel's flag state of registry. The sort of incidents I am talking about might range from hostage-taking through the use of a maritime platform by terrorists as a means of transport to the employment of a vessel as a weapon, possibly of mass effect. Clearly, close co-operation with the maritime industry is essential if we are to be ready with the right sort of contingency plans, and actions, when required.
	Let me turn to a wider geographical focus. If, in a particular region, the threat to merchant shipping has been determined to be sufficiently high, a system of escorting entitled merchant vessels by Royal Naval warships can be established, such as that which was introduced for Operation TELIC—the Iraqi operation—earlier this year. Indeed, there is particularly close co-operation in the Arabian Gulf, where the Royal Navy's maritime trade organisation, based in Dubai, provides a traffic advice service to assist in the safe passage of white shipping to and from the Gulf.
	Of course, Operation TELIC was an important test of that organisation and also the United Kingdom's strategic lift. More than 139,000 linear metres of equipment were moved in 93 sailings over a two-month period, using a total of 64 ships. As I am sure your Lordships know, 95 per cent of all military equipment is moved by sea.
	As I have implied, relationships between the merchant navy and the Royal Navy are strong. One of the closest is through the Ministry of Defence's links with the Chamber of Shipping, the trade association for British shipowners and ship managers. This is achieved primarily through two bodies. The first is the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee. This non-executive body, formed of Ministry of Defence and other government departments and British companies, aims to promote mutual understanding and take forward areas of common interest. Chaired by the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, the committee provides a valuable opportunity for networking and allowing colleagues from industry and the MoD to work collaboratively on developing initiatives. The 59th annual meeting took place only three weeks ago; its key output was to facilitate closer integration across government on maritime security issues.
	Equally importantly, the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff is an ex officio member of the board of the Chamber of Shipping—a close and essential linkage that is highly valued by the Royal Navy. Incidentally, your Lordships will wish to be aware that the 2001 Shipping Defence Advisory Committee formulated a concept for promoting maritime issues on behalf of the entire industry. This work crystallised in a national campaign called Sea Vision UK, which was officially launched in January this year. The campaign aims to raise awareness of the importance of our maritime sector in terms of the wealth and defence of the country and to promote the wide range of exciting and challenging maritime careers available. That may help to answer the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the relatively low numbers of British seafarers. The Royal Navy is a strong supporter of Sea Vision, and is closely engaged.
	I would also like to mention SeaBritain 2005. At one time this was titled Year of the Sea, but now SeaBritain 2005 is a national maritime celebration with festivities and events taking place throughout the year to highlight the ways in which the sea touches all of our lives. Naturally, at its heart, is the Trafalgar festival 2005, the bicentennial commemoration of the great battle and Nelson. The SeaBritain 2005 team is working in close partnership with VisitBritain and Sea Vision UK, and it is still hoped that the highlight of the year will be an international fleet review in the Solent.
	I mention all this because the Sea Vision campaign and SeaBritain 2005 would indeed be opportunities that could be exploited by a comprehensive maritime policy whether that covered pleasure or sporting activities on the sea or container ships.
	Finally, I shall briefly cover one other area that could benefit from such a policy—that of navigational safety around our shores, a subject that is giving serious concern to Trinity House. I declare an interest, as I am a Younger Brother of Trinity House.
	Sea traffic is busier than ever; I have mentioned the Dover Straits. Ships are deeper and going faster, with over-reliance on poorly integrated albeit clever technology through waters that are restricting shipping patterns and increasing safety problems because of the wind and wave farms being built in navigable seaways. A comprehensive maritime policy could provide impetus to address properly such issues as the need for an integrated monitoring organisation in our complex offshore environment, or to raise watch-keeping standards and knowledge. I fully support the need for a comprehensive maritime policy.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Earl on securing the debate. It is a very wide subject, covering a wide range of different issues, but I shall cover the questions of maritime policy and enforcement—or lack of.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred in closing to the difficulties of maritime policy. Although Britain has such a large coastline and maritime industry, we must recognise that we are part of the European continental shelf. Therefore, many of the policy issues that affect the maritime environment and operations emanate from Brussels. It is easy to blame Brussels for everything that goes wrong—for delays in enforcement and implementation—but some of the policies that are being introduced are very helpful. That applies not only to sea but to air. It is clearly appropriate that there should be European policies on many of those matters, rather than a UK one alone.
	In the past year or so, I have been struck by something that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred to. The demand for maritime transport is increasing dramatically and very fast. We have spent a lot of time in your Lordships' House discussing road traffic congestion and, sometimes, railways as well. However, I understand from some of the major shipping lines that they expect there to be two to three times the number of containers coming into this country in 20 years. Whether it is two or three times the number does not matter very much. It is not only the containers coming in full that we are talking about—they will probably have to go out again empty, although that is a matter for a different debate. However, there is likely to be an increase in coastal trade and shipping, which will be good for our economy and ports but demands a policy to deal with it.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that maritime policy was important, and I agree with him. It primarily concerns freight, and it should of course be part of an overall transport policy, which includes not only the maritime part—the shipping—but the ports, railways and inland terminals. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned devolution. Scotland deserves congratulations on what it has achieved already. One of the main achievements is the roll-on, roll-off ferry from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. As people in Scotland tell me, the great thing is that it avoids England and the congestion that England has created for itself. It is doing well in a comparatively short time and perhaps England—or Britain—should do the same.
	Ports are very much part of the logistics chain, which probably starts in China or Eastern Europe, and ends up on our supermarket shelves or in our town centres. I understand that Ministers cannot really speak about ports at all at the moment, because of the planning applications that are under review. That is all right, but we can talk about the need for ports.
	It is odd to reflect that the private sector provides the investment and efficiency in this country, in shipping and ports and so on. That does not happen on the continent, as the noble Earl said. That produces some anomalies, because when one goes to ports and terminals on the continent, one finds that they are lovely. There is enormous expenditure on them, and costs are low—there are no light dues on the continent, and so on. There is a lot of benefit from the private sector and the trust ports doing as they do in this country. However, if the private sector or the trust ports are going to invest to cope with the doubling or trebling of traffic in 20 years, they need the confidence that the Government will facilitate the road and rail infrastructure that leads to the ports—which, on the whole, cannot be provided in the private sector. If that is not done, they will go elsewhere; they will even go to France, the Netherlands and Antwerp, and we will end up as a country of feeder services, which will cost us more, and will mean that the goods take longer to get to market. Whether that is a good or a bad thing we can debate, but a lot of people believe the matter to be serious.
	Do the Government believe that there is a need for a maritime and port policy, and a need for more UK port capacity? From that question follows the inevitable question, if the Government are going to facilitate the growth of ports around the country, do they believe that they have an obligation to facilitate the road and rail infrastructure that connects to the ports?
	I take issue with the noble Earl on rail matters. He said that rail did not have a big part to play, but I would disagree, as he would probably expect me to. For example, Immingham is the biggest rail freight terminal in the country; it does not take as many containers as other terminals, but it takes an enormous amount of bulk goods, including coal. The noble Earl may not be aware that 25 per cent of electricity in this country is generated by coal that is moved around by rail. Sadly, much of it is imported and is just-in-time delivery. Sometimes, when the coal is in the train, the train is told to go to a different power station, which is quite difficult to organise.
	To take another example, Southampton has very good rail freight services. The problem is the lorry queues; because of road congestion, it sometimes takes four, six or eight hours before lorries can get into the port. The rail services are quite good, however. Rail freight can cope, and can sometimes get priority over passenger trains—it depends who arrives first on time. I do not believe that I need to go into that matter. However, it is important to have a policy that covers the maritime industry, the ports and service transport in a single framework, in which companies can be encouraged to invest.
	It is interesting to draw the comparison with the White Paper on the 30-year policy for air, which came out yesterday. Why do the Government believe that we need 30 years for air when we have a 10-year policy for road and rail and, as other noble Lords said, not much about sea? It is important to have long-term policies, as it does not take much longer to build another runway or airport than to get an extension such as Dibden Bay or Barside Bay at Harwich, or anywhere else. There must be the public inquiry, and everything else. Why are we predicting and providing for air for 30 years ahead while doing nothing on the maritime side, although one hopes that we shall have a review of the transport policy next year?
	I turn to regulation and enforcement. We have discussed the issue of increased shipping. Who regulates that, ensures that is safe and enforces it? I declare an interest as president of the UK Marine Pilots Association. I succeeded my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in that role. As an example of the problem, the "Prestige" sank off Portugal last winter and is, apparently, polluting UK beaches.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to water quality, and he is quite right. I have a pilot friend who recently told me about a ship which he got on to pilot into a port on the east side of England—I shall not get any closer than that. He asked where the radar was, and was told that it was bust. He asked were the GPS was, but that was bust. When he asked where the compass was, they told him that there were two compasses. "Can I see them?" he asked. "Yes, they said, one is bust but one is working". He asked to see the deviation card which helps sort out magnetic anomalies. He found that the magnetic deviation was such that the compass always pointed north—a random direction—so that the compass was quite useless. He asked the captain how he managed to get from northern Europe to his destination, to which he replied, "I followed someone else". The captain was in charge of a big cargo ship. There are many examples of, "I followed someone else". It was lucky that the weather was not foggy.
	Noble Lords will recall the incident that I believe took place in late May where a large container ship, which I believe was registered in Monrovia, ran down a yacht. Luckily, the people in the yacht were rescued somewhere between Southampton and Cherbourg. At the time I asked a Minister who would enforce action against the ship that was clearly speeding in extremely dense fog. The answer was, "It is registered in Liberia, isn't it?"
	Do members of a crew speak the same language? Can they communicate with one another? The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to that. We must do something about this matter. Just imagine if an airline pilot could not communicate with his navigator as they did not speak the same language. That would not be allowed, would it? So why should the maritime industry get away with that? There are some extremely good shipping lines and coastal shipping lines in the world but there are also some awfully bad ones. The Government could take a lead, at least starting within Europe, on getting proper enforcement, proper rules and proper penalties, well ahead of whatever the IMO might achieve in 10 years or so, to ensure that we have at least taken some measures to prevent the next major accident when everyone will cry out for action. Would it not be nice if we thought of that first as part of a total maritime policy?

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this debate on shipping—a matter that we do not discuss often enough in this House. I congratulate him on the speed with which he has managed to obtain this debate in the new Session.
	It is a pleasure to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will reply to this debate. He is a rather unfamiliar personage to be speaking on this subject. However, he will be pleased to hear that I shall join the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in giving the Government a pat on the back. The Government have done a lot for British shipping. Their bold decision to have a proper look at the tonnage tax, setting up the report of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, bringing forward the White Paper and acting on it was very commendable, and it has brought results. As I think the noble Earl said, UK-owned tonnage has risen by 85 per cent since then. UK flagged shipping—which includes a number of ships coming in from other registries—has grown by more than 200 per cent. That is all very good for UK shipping.
	The Government also made changes to the Marine and Coastguard Agency which proved to be very successful. The Deputy Prime Minister, who played a big part in pushing through the tonnage tax, also played a part in the changes I have just mentioned as I believe that he championed Maurice Storey, who became the chief executive of the MCA. Maurice Storey has done a remarkable job in transforming the industry, in setting standards that are the envy of the world, and in particular in working in partnership with ship owners which has attracted many foreign ship owners to flag into the UK register. I willingly add to the plaudits that he has received on his recent retirement. He has returned to the shipping industry from whence he came. The Deputy Prime Minister made a successful move in championing someone who came from the industry. I am delighted to see that Maurice Storey's successor, Captain Stephen Bligh, formerly with P&O, is also an industry man. That bodes well for the future of the MCA.
	The tonnage tax carried with it a training requirement which has also notched up a certain success. Nowadays we have upward of 600 officer cadets training as opposed to just over 200 some years ago. Indeed, the number has gone up 30 per cent over the past year. That is very welcome but there is no point in training young people to go to sea if we cannot find berths for them when they have completed their training. That is one of the problems we have yet to face. Although our cadets are extremely well trained, they are also fairly expensive compared with officers from other countries. That problem must be addressed if we are to help with the general safety of shipping. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce said, shipping is basically under threat from the seafarers who operate it. That is the main problem at sea today—the standard of officers. Your Lordships will remember the case of the "Tricolor", the Norwegian car carrier that sank after a collision in the Channel. There are several well publicised cases of ships actually running on to the semi-submerged wreck. Since then, up to one ship a week has passed within the wreck marking buoys. What does that say about standards of seamanship today?
	The Government's White Paper was very good in so far as it went but there are still a number of outstanding matters that remain to be addressed, which I shall outline briefly. One is the possible extension of the tonnage tax to other sectors of shipping such as aggregate carriers and specialist North Sea vessels which come up against a great deal of foreign competition. There is also the question of foreign earnings deduction, which is an income tax alleviation available to deep sea crews spending more than 183 days overseas. However, that is not available to crews on domestic and limited short sea services who are employed away from home on similar employment patterns. Companies involved in those sectors have real problems in retaining their officers.
	There is also the question of extending crew relief costs to short sea shipping and assistance with training where the aid regime currently averages 40 to 50 per cent of the training costs. In the industry's opinion it should be increased to 100 per cent.
	The tenor of the debate has concerned a maritime policy. The Government love to talk about joined-up government but I see no real progress in joined-up government in relation to maritime matters. As I said, just as one department of the Government has a certain success then along comes another department such as the Treasury and puts its foot in it without prior consultation with the interested parties. We have had two recent proposals which might have jeopardised the recovery of British shipping. One was a proposal to withdraw the exemption of merchant shipping under Section 9 of the Race Relations Act, which admittedly came from Europe, but would have meant that all non-resident crew on British vessels would have had to be paid at UK rates. That would have resulted in a loss of 400 ships to the British register.
	There was also a problem with National Insurance contributions. The Inland Revenue announced that the employers' exemption for seafarers paid offshore would be withdrawn. That proposal has been partly modified though not to the satisfaction of NUMAST.
	I am pleased to say that nothing came up in the Pre-Budget Statement last week, but there are threats emerging that may affect the continuing resurgence of UK shipping. One involves changing the leasing arrangements under corporation tax. The other is the old chestnut of taxing the domiciled Greek ship owners in the City of London. Greek ship owners have played a very important part in the City of London and in particular in the Baltic Exchange for many years. Their offices in London act as a line of communication with the Greek shipping companies and, at present, Greece controls the largest shipping fleet in the world. As a result, much business flows into maritime London for the ancillary services, insurance, banking and legal affairs and so on. Therefore, I believe that the Government would be ill-advised to apply such a tax. Such people supply much to the country, not only in respect of shipping but in other areas as well.
	Ports have been mentioned quite a lot in the debate and so I shall not say too much about them, other than that I warmly support what has been said about them and the urgent need for more container capacity in the south east. Over the years, our planning procedures have been gargantuan and over-lengthy. Although the Government have made noises about speeding things up, something must be done more urgently because there is no doubt that the big shipping companies will take their ships, which are becoming larger and larger by the day, to continental hubs and goods will be feedered across to us, resulting in more expense for the shippers.
	Light dues have been mentioned in passing. Here, like the noble and gallant Lord, I declare an interest as a Younger Brother of Trinity House. Last April, the Government announced that they are making no changes to the philosophy of light dues. However, I understand that further consultations are taking place. The options being considered include a more equitable method of charging. That would please operators with large container ships, which call at UK ports only six or eight times a year compared with the ferries, which are in and out every day. I believe that that would be a useful avenue to consider.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, dwelt on the leisure side of the maritime industry. I fully support what he said. It enables me to dismiss that subject—not that I was intending to talk about it, but it is a very important part of maritime Britain. In passing, the noble Lord mentioned light dues. I know that the Government have considered the possibility of charging yachtsmen and yachts. The difficulty is how one goes about that. I do not believe that at present the Government want to adopt a registration scheme for yachts, especially with an election not too far away, because a large number of people go sailing.
	It is not strictly true to say that light dues are not paid on the Continent. They are not paid in France, Holland or Germany, where they come out of general taxation, but you can bet your boots that they are hidden in other port charges, which the shipping companies do not necessarily see. If one looks at the world situation and takes the top 50 countries, it is interesting to note that a third of them cover the cost of lights and voyage from general taxation, a third part-fund them from light dues, and a third charge light dues. Therefore, the issue is not as clear cut as some people believe.
	I now turn to the subject of safety, which has also been mentioned. Here again, the MCA has done an excellent job, and the setting up of SOSREP—the Secretary of State's representative in case of maritime disasters—has worked extremely well. That came out of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson: Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. It must be said that the efforts made in that respect, coming as they did from the "Sea Empress" disaster and the experience of earlier disasters, such as that of the "Torrey Canyon", have again placed us in a pre-eminent position with regard to the rest of the world so far as concerns safety.
	Initially, the International Salvage Union was not very keen on the SOSREP idea, but it has come to accept its merits fully and now promotes our system as a model for the rest of the world. Indeed, that is happening. Europe recently set up its own safety agency—the European Maritime Safety Agency—which is to be based in Lisbon. However, I believe that there is a slight danger here. If Europe tries to take over all European safety, that may affect our present pre-eminent position by dumbing down to a general level.
	Ports of refuge have not been mentioned. That subject is under discussion and I believe that something must be done by next February. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. The issue has arisen from several maritime incidents—in particular, the "Prestige" off Spain. In the opinion of most maritime experts, that ship and her cargo could have been saved had she been towed into one of the many inlets that exist on that part of north-west Spain. It is important that countries designate—they do not necessarily have to publish them—ports of refuge where ships in trouble can be towed.
	Some of your Lordships may remember the incident involving the "Flying Enterprise". Heroic efforts were made by the captain and the mate of the tug "Turmoil" to save the ship but, sadly, they failed. However, nowadays, it seems to me that at the first sign of trouble the crew are whipped off by helicopter and the ship is left to its fate. That cannot make good economic sense. I believe that the insurers and the banking fraternity can play a more important and far larger part in ship safety and in helping to rid the seas of sub-standard ships.
	On the question of the "Prestige", we have seen unilateral action taken by Europe in banning from ports single-hull tankers carrying heavy fuel oils. We have seen the extraordinary situation whereby perfectly sound ships have been escorted some 200 miles off the coast of Spain. To my mind, that must go against the law of the sea. I am surprised that no one has yet brought a case. It is far better to leave such actions to the International Maritime Organization, which is the international body for dealing with such matters. Europe has now acted and that has set a precedent, which, for me, is a danger for the way ahead. I believe we must deal with shipping internationally—it is an international business. While I am on the subject of the IMO, I pay tribute to Bill O'Neill, who is just retiring after 14 remarkable years there. I believe that he has done a splendid job.
	I want to comment briefly on short-sea shipping, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I believe that efforts are being made to increase the use of the sea with short-sea shipping, and a new Short Sea Bureau has been set up under Professor James McConville. That is a welcome development.
	I welcome what the noble and gallant Lord said about the Sea Vision UK project and SeaBritain. It is a welcome step for the public and the media, in particular, to be educated in shipping matters.
	I was going to say a few words about the ghost ships but I shall pass on that. Suffice it to say that in this country we have been breaking up ships for years and I believe that the whole thing has been an utter nonsense.
	In the future, global shipping will be influenced by one thing in particular—that is, the growth of China. We shall see a huge increase in Chinese shipping. Chinese crews will be the main source of seafarers in the future.
	In conclusion, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of shipping and its advantages and that they maintain a strong and well run maritime transport sector. How do we do that in terms of a shipping policy? I have mentioned previously the prospect of a possible Minister for the sea. I do not believe that we can go down that road now, but the Government are very fond of tsars. Perhaps a shipping tsar would be another way of tackling the issue.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for giving the House the chance to debate these matters. When I first saw the title of the debate I was interested to find out what a comprehensive maritime policy was. So far we have heard a wide range of ideas and I have learned a little more. I hope to bring into the debate my ideas of what maritime policy should involve, maybe widen the debate and possibly stray into devolved matters.
	Five years ago I would have cried "foul" but I am happy for Scotland to be debated here now that we have successfully restarted the Scottish state. In that context, I mention in passing that having a First Minister who was brought up on an island is a benefit and having a Deputy First Minister who represents an island is also good and useful.
	I acknowledge the ideas of many speakers, although I shall not touch on them myself. I certainly go along with the point made by the noble Earl about Scapa Flow and Hunterston and the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord about defence, beaches, shores and light dues. No one mentioned—although I anticipated that they would—tidal and other forms of energy or oil rig security. The transfer from road to sea was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who spoke of goods being taken from the port on to the rest of the transport infrastructure. No one mentioned marine nature reserves. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned recreation and I was glad to hear at least one other person broaden the debate. Flags and crews were mentioned but no one mentioned coastal defence—I do not mean military defence.
	I am certain that maritime policy is about shipping in all its forms—cargo, passenger, holiday-makers, ferries—and hence about the infrastructure that makes shipping activity possible. It is inevitable that the world's fourth largest economy, when based on an island group, will be dependent on ships for all forms of overseas trade. I acknowledge in passing that some economic activity also goes by the tunnel, by air, by underwater cables, by pipeline and by satellite. The noble Earl stated that by weight 95 per cent of trade goes by sea. I am sure that he is correct. It certainly sounds likely.
	On these Benches—I wish they were occupied by at least one other person—we are concerned about maritime piracy and armed robbery against ships. That is a serious threat to the well being of our seafarers and our ships but it is also a threat to the marine environment should any ship be sunk or have some of its cargo jettisoned into the sea.
	Since I left school I seem to have started to collect islands; at least, I visit them—island bagging, if you like. The result is that I am reasonably familiar with some of the steamer routes. Visits ensued to Arran, Bute, Islay, Jura, Mull, Iona, Tiree, Skye, Barra, Vatersay, the Uists and Benbecula, Harris and Lewis, Orkney, Hoy and Shetland. Perhaps the gems were Mingulay and St Kilda. The result of all that misspent early adulthood was a reasonable familiarity with many of the mainland coastal ports and harbours. Many of those places are as remote as the islands that their ferries serve. Last summer when in Mallaig I found myself agreeing with the claim made in Mallaig that it is more typical of a Norwegian port than a Scottish one in view of the amount of wilderness that one must travel through to get there by road or train.
	The maritime environment provides for much of our food, and sea fishing is an activity that currently finds itself in controversy. With so much of the United Kingdom fishing fleet based in Scotland, one cannot but recognise that over-fishing occurs and that the common fisheries policy of the EU receives most of the blame. Scottish fishermen may well feel that the common fisheries policy has shared out their fishing grounds over-generously and that the scientists are wrong and that the cod have moved northwards to cooler waters rather than being in danger of becoming extinct. I acknowledge that later today we shall discuss that issue further.
	While preparing for this debate I mused on the semantics of the Motion. Did the noble Earl really mean to refer to "a comprehensive maritime policy" or did he mean a comprehensive marine policy? I suspect that he meant the latter. My fundamental approach is that a maritime policy concerns the way in which government deal with maritime areas, often remote coastal strips and the islands. It is a sad statistic that the populations of the 98 inhabited islands of Scotland have reduced to less than 100,000 for the first time in living memory. It is obvious that the islands are remote in almost every way and access to markets is a critical one.
	I believe that the Government should make every effort to enable people to populate all of our landmass and to make a living for themselves doing real work. This is not a call for subsidy. Only governments can construct infrastructure and place government work in remote maritime areas. With such a policy the private sector would see that there was less difficulty in following suit. The Government should make every effort to extend broadband into the remote areas. Not to do so holds back those areas, possibly even more so than the more central mainland areas.
	I note with interest the endeavours of Scotland's other neighbours, Norway, the Faroes and Ireland. Anyone visiting Norway is bound to notice the efforts made by the southern Norwegians to enable people to live and work in the north of Norway. The infrastructure is magnificent and Norway wants its remote areas populated. By contrast, northern Sweden is relatively empty. That is their choice. It has to be reflected upon that Norway and Scotland both have oil and gas fields. However, the two countries have made different use of the revenues. In the Faroe Islands it is also striking how much effort is made to make life practical throughout that island group, where the terrain is largely perpendicular. In mentioning Ireland, I shall pick out its requirement that 25 per cent of all inward investment must be placed in the west of Ireland.
	Lest it be said that I spoke only of Scotland, not all islands suffer from remoteness problems. While visiting the Isle of Wight I saw an unusual amount of economic activity, as I did in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Of course that was for different reasons. Those three islands enjoy many institutions of state on their islands with the economic benefits that they bring.
	Despite my obvious enthusiasm for matters Norwegian, I wonder whether it is good that Norwegian companies own so much of the Scottish fish farming industry. That market dominance and the problems of pollution, fish diversity and over-supply should be in local rather than overseas hands. The noble Earl has done well to bring a focus to the United Kingdom's interface with the rest of the world. I hope that that attention will be well used by the Government.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. He is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of maritime policy, having been a Minister in this House responsible for a Conservative government's policy on maritime issues. He has demonstrated his expertise today. Most noble Lords who have spoken have some form of expertise, but I probably have the least of any noble Lord speaking in the debate. However, I shall do as much as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, is shaking his head, but he at least lives by the sea and looks out at it every morning. No doubt he has a view.
	As Conservatives, we have always wanted to see a fair deal for shipping. A number of challenges are coming up that will affect the industry, not least the impact of the EU working time directive and the possible EU ports directive. There is also a debate about light dues.
	The statistics in relation to shipping are a success in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, was right to congratulate the Government. The trading fleet operated by UK-based companies under all registers has grown by 2.5 per cent in carrying capacity to 12.3 million deadweight tonnes, although the total number of ships has remained at about 590. The shipping fleet contributes significantly to our economy in terms of balance of payments and employment. Overseas earnings for 2001 have been maintained at £5.1 billion, of which the contribution to the balance of payments was £2.5 billion. It is a successful industry.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, pointed out the importance of our UK maritime fleet, which has been needed for recent events in the Middle East. With the noble and gallant Lord's experience as First Sea Lord and Chief of Defence Staff, he knows about the necessity of having a strong merchant fleet in this country.
	In 1998 the Government published a White Paper on the future of the shipping industry called British shipping: Charting a new course. It was a supposedly comprehensive strategy to secure the future of UK shipping in the form of 33 interrelated measures. They have been mentioned tonight. Will the noble Lord give us some estimation of their success? How many measures have been put in place? The measures relate to increasing skills, encouraging employment, increasing this country's attractiveness to shipping enterprises, and improving safety and environmental benefit. How well do the Government feel they have done in achieving those goals?
	The Chamber of Shipping in its annual review has commented on the introduction of the tonnage tax, which, by and large, has been a welcome development for the industry. It stated:
	"Since the adoption of the tonnage tax three years ago, 62 shipping groups, representing around 200 companies and operating some 720 vessels, have now entered this tax regime. Aimed to place UK-based companies on an equal footing with their competitors world-wide, tonnage tax has offered companies a chance to be subject to low-level taxation based on the size of the fleet that they operate, rather than on actual profits. This system is increasingly common in shipping, particularly in Europe".
	Perhaps the Minister can give us the percentage of the total in terms of the number of ships and tonnes and tell us whether the Government expect that amount to grow.
	There are two sub-sectors of the industry that are still not able to benefit from this tax regime—the aggregate carriers and specialist vessels operating on the UK Continental Shelf. What progress has been made? I believe that it is a matter of negotiation with the EU Commission. This is an extremely important area for those companies operating those ships. I should be grateful if the Minister could bring us up-to-date on it.
	I mentioned earlier the EU working time directive. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government have made an assessment of how that is impacting on the industry.
	The EU ports directive was the subject of a House of Commons Transport Committee report. I understand that the European Parliament has rejected that directive. Can the Minister give us our position on the issue? There were certainly differing views in the industry about whether its rejection was a good or a bad idea. The Freight Transport Association said that,
	"this is a massive blow for the competitiveness of European ports and their customers as the Directive was designed to break down the barriers that prevent private companies operating dockside services in many EU ports".
	The International Transport Workers' Federation called the move,
	"a milestone victory, not just for the trade unions and workers who campaigned so effectively against this hopelessly flawed legislation".
	So, what is the position on the legislation? I should be interested to hear the Government's view.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his knowledge of the rail industry talked about that issue. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the connection between container ports and rail? This is an important issue. After all, one train can haul at least 40 containers as compared with the goods going by road. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Caithness talked about short-sea shipping. The Government have a duty to play a proactive role in this area because, as we know, container ships are getting ever larger and are carrying more containers. If we can get them moved from ports cheaply—by rail when possible and of course by road when not—it will make a big difference to the economy.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Viscount think that the diminution of British seafarers is a good or a bad thing? If he thinks that it is a bad thing, how would he address the situation?

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall not answer the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because it is for the Government to respond to the debate. I have a number of questions and, quite frankly, it would take a long time to do that. I shall concentrate on letting the Government set out their stall and saying what their policy is.
	I turn to the issue of light dues, which has been mentioned. In opposition the Labour Party promised to scrap this tax. So far as I am aware, it has not been scrapped. What is the Government's view? I would be interested to know whether they have changed their policy or have just not got around to the matter. It is claimed that none of our major competitors levies this tax, which means that we have an extra cost and ships visiting our ports have to pay a tax which they would not have to pay if they visited continental ports.
	The House of Commons Select Committee concluded in its ports inquiry report that light dues are,
	"inconsistent with other European countries and distort competition".
	I urge the Government to consider the entire concept of light dues and, in particular, to progress in the negotiations with the Republic of Ireland over the £5 million subsidy paid by this country for lights in the republic every year. What is the Government's policy on that? It would be interesting to know.
	I turn to an area that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—conservation. The maritime industry is not just shipping, but includes pipelines, drilling rigs, underground cables, offshore energy and so on. Which government department has an overall remit for environmental policy? Some of it must come under the Department for Transport, but obviously that department is not responsible specifically for energy policies, so how does that work between the various different sectors?
	Finally, I turn to the extremely important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of maritime sports. The associations of sea anglers and sea angling have a turnover of £1 billion. I hope the Government will support in principle all sea sports. After all, surfing bodies and pressure groups have made a huge difference in helping to clean up our beaches and in making sure that more local authorities achieve blue flags on their beaches than ever before. The surfing community is perhaps in the fore in putting on such pressure. It is a sport for the young; it is not expensive; one needs a surfboard, a wetsuit—unless one is very hardy—and one needs to be able to swim. On that note, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is customary in your Lordships' House always to congratulate the originator of a debate. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is fully entitled to have rapturous congratulations in having brought these issues before us this evening. It is also customary to comment on the breadth of contributions to debates. That breadth has been excessive in many respects. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for introducing a dimension to the debate which I think probably, and in fairness and due deference to all other speakers, would have been absent if he had not made such a voluble contribution to what is an extremely interesting subject indeed.
	I will probably disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, by being unable fully to live up to the breadth of his contribution, but I recognise the importance of all the issues that he raised. As he acutely remarked, coming from a seaside resort, I am familiar with many of those issues. I am delighted that, with his customary vigour, the noble Lord is pursuing them, because they are important issues that need to be raised in national policy making.
	Probably the most astute observation was that by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who observed that I was not as familiar as I might be with the subject. He struck a bull's-eye with that comment. But that does not lessen my great interest in the subject, because I recognise that this is an important debate. When I asked officials when the subject was last debated, there was much head-scratching and no one could remember a debate on shipping and maritime issues in recent times. That is unfortunate and regrettable; we must give the matter constant thought. I do what Ministers usually do at this point and apologise in advance for all the issues that I do not cover in my response.
	I should make clear that the Government's transport policy does not just focus on particular problems such as road congestion and the state of our railways and is instead an integrated approach. That is important because it relates to the importance of ports and how they have come to the fore. The growing demand for port capacity, the substantial revival in the fortunes of UK merchant shipping—to which most speakers have referred—and the trend towards larger vessels have made ports and the needs of those who use them topical.
	Several noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others—referred to the substantial growth in the handling of goods and use of ports in the European context. We handle more goods than any other European country. In 2001, they totalled 566 million tonnes. Through-put does not necessarily equate to efficiency, but UK ports are among the most efficient in Europe in terms of volume handled per metre of quay and per hectare of container storage. We anticipate that that efficiency will continue steadily to increase.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at the outset, not only does this country have a long maritime tradition but 95 per cent of our international trade is by sea. As an island nation, we have 10,500 miles of superb coastline. Shipping that is safe and clean is therefore essential to the prosperity of the United Kingdom. The maritime industry also makes a significant contribution to the UK economy. In its "Sea Vision" campaign, with which we are delighted, which promotes UK shipping, the Chamber of Shipping recently estimated that the UK maritime industry has a turnover of £37 billion and accounts, directly and indirectly, for a quarter of a million jobs.
	Much praise has been directed towards the Deputy Prime Minister for his important role in introducing a new shipping policy. As several noble Lords have mentioned, that was set out in 1998 in the White Paper, British Shipping: Charting a new course. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me how we thought that we were progressing in reaching the targets set out in that document. Progress-monitoring is under way. I am happy to write to the noble Viscount to update him about the progress that has been made. The shipping task force meetings are working on that, and the 33 measures have gone a long way to ensuring that we secure the important policy objectives set out in that document. It focuses on an integrated strategy aimed at reversing the decline of the British merchant fleet and the number of British seafarers that had occurred during the previous 20 years.
	Much reference was made to the introduction of the tonnage tax in 2000 and the registration reforms of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Those measures have helped to produce a favourable environment for shipping. That is clearly demonstrated by the 200 per cent growth in gross shipping tonnage registered under the UK flag since 1997. In June 2003, the UK-registered trading fleet stood at 8.9 million—in 15th place in the world league tables, as it were, and accounting for about 2 per cent of the world trading fleet.
	Shipping provides our primary link to international markets and considerable opportunities for the development of sustainable traffic flows. Our ports play an important role as a key connector in multi-modal transport systems used for the vast bulk of our trade and by millions of domestic and international passengers. They represent the heart of many communities and their continuing success is central to local and regional regeneration and prosperity.
	The Government recognise that the worldwide shipping and ports sector is growing strongly. The United Kingdom has an excellent opportunity to benefit from that growth and there is clear potential for significant inward investment and the delivery of wider economic and environmental benefits.
	I shall try to respond to some of the points raised. An important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, was why it was that there is a national policy for aviation and airports but not one for ports. We take the view that, compared with ports, airports are much more likely to become major development hubs in their own right and require land-take close to urban areas, placing heavy burdens on road and rail access infrastructure. Through aircraft movements, they give rise to significant environmental impacts over a wide area.
	Although they can have some of those features, ports generally have much less effect on surrounding populations. The Government believe that, as far as possible, proposals for port expansions should be treated in the same way as other commercial and industrial developments. Of course, that does not mean that the impact of port developments, including those over a wider area, should not be taken into account by the operation of the planning system in the normal way.
	I know that criticisms have been made of how the planning process can impact on the development of ports—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—but we are ensuring that there are changes and reforms. We are all aware of those concerns. A review of marine consents procedures is being undertaken, although I confess that it has taken somewhat longer than we hoped to announce its conclusions, but we shall do so sometime in the New Year. We have now published an appraisal framework for ports, derived from our guidance on multi-modal studies, which, I think it is fair to say, has been generally welcomed.
	We believe that that will improve the development and consent process and assist promoters, objectors and all others involved in planning inquiries in determining whether all relevant factors and concerns have been properly considered. We have also announced measures to streamline the public policy process, while ensuring that all views of important stakeholders can be adequately considered.
	Important questions were also raised about the forecast demand for port capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, certainly raised the issue. We acknowledge that increasing demand for port capacity is one of the principal challenges that we must face in order effectively to handle the growth in container traffic and in the size of ships themselves. The UK ports sector has risen to that challenge and, as a result, during the past few years, several major proposals for new facilities across the United Kingdom have been made. Reference was made to some of those developments—in particular, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. We have had to give those matters careful consideration. In the devolved administrations we will be taking consistent decisions after weighing up all the relevant factors and looking at the balance of advantage. The Government are working hard to understand better the pressures on port capacity. That is a complex task. It has been suggested that we should make our own forecasts of container demand. However, there are existing forecasts on container traffic which at least appear to be in broad agreement, so the extra benefit that Government forecasts would bring is not clear.
	Noble Lords have also called for more Government intervention, an important issue regarding public funding for our ports. As befits a maritime nation, the United Kingdom has a large number of ports of all sizes that cater for all traffic. It is not perhaps widely known that there are 1,030 commercially active ports, wharves and terminals around our coastline. Unlike continental Europe our ports are in the private sector, as noble Lords have observed. Likewise, although shipping is vitally important to the United Kingdom, it is run on a strict commercial basis. Our general approach has been that commercial port developments and operations should not need public subsidy, whether that originates from domestic or community programmes. Port infrastructure can, and should be, commercially financed, as, in our view, public money is not well spent by distorting competition between the many ports in the United Kingdom. However, we recognise that there are circumstances where economic impact is outweighed by social and environmental gain. In each case we take a careful view on the merits before particular decisions are made.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the issue of new port development. I have already referred to that and there is consideration of a number of applications for new container terminals. As was accurately predicted, they are not matters upon which I can comment at this stage by looking at the merits of the different proposals. It would be fairer if those decisions were made and announced in the usual way. It would be extremely unwise for me to comment.
	I now turn to other questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the EC directive on market access to port services. The Government were disappointed by the rejection by the European Parliament of proposals that we saw as being fair and workable compromises. Our commitment is to continue to press for a workable strategy for the liberalisation of the community port sector. We take that seriously, but it is unlikely to happen in the near future. The noble Viscount also raised the access to ports directive, although I might be wrong. We intend to press the EU on that issue, the importance of which we recognise. It figures large in our discussions and negotiations.
	The issue of light dues was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. We believe that light dues are an important aid to navigation and should be paid for primarily by those who use them. Taxpayers should not be expected to meet those costs. I hear the comments of the noble Lord about seeing them as another form of taxation; and also I note his comments about our view in opposition. Recently we have had a consultation exercise on reviewing light dues, the outcome of which was inconclusive. There was no clear consensus for change to the current light dues structure, or a solution to how costs could be more fairly distributed. I can confirm that an economic study is under way on the effect of light dues on commercial operating costs and trading patterns.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend reaches the end of his remarks, would he be kind enough to say something about crewing? Significantly, that issue has been omitted. When I was Minister of Shipping, crewing was all-important. Would the Minister comment on that vital issue, without which British shipping cannot make the progress that we want to see?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, certainly I recognise the importance of that issue. The Government see the importance of seafarer training to ensure that we provide for the future of the industry. We have been encouraged, and are doing all that we can to encourage, seafarer training. Our support for the maritime training scheme has been running since 1998. We have invested in that. There is support for the training of officers and ratings. I understand that there is currently a budget of some £9.5 million a year. In the year 2002–03 the scheme funded 557 cadets, which is an increase of 16 per cent over the previous year. In a sense, that gives testament to the commitment that we have as an Administration to providing for a workforce for the future that responds to labour pressures and the demands that the development and growth in shipping will undoubtedly place on our economy.
	The Government's shipping policy has resulted in a substantial revival of the merchant fleet. I have already spoken of the important boost that we have given to training to cater for that. A number of noble Lords have referred to the fact that we have created a positive environment for shipping and the wider maritime sector. We are determined for that to continue. We have established a sound partnership with the industry and the shipping task force. We will continue to build on the valuable co-operation that we have generated. The Government clearly recognise the importance to the United Kingdom of the continued economic success of the ports sector. We believe that we have in place a comprehensive package of measures which is right for a modern, successful, sustainable and safe ports industry. The Government are actively helping to ensure that the maritime industry as a whole is in good shape to deal with future challenges and seize new opportunities.
	We have had a valuable and important debate. I apologise to noble Lords for my inadequacy in dealing with all of the issues that have been raised, but they were many. I shall review them all and ensure that specific responses are made to those questions as a matter of courtesy and to ensure that they are put on public record. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this debate and I apologise for my inadequacies in responding, but I congratulate all those who have taken part on their valuable contributions to a matter of increasing importance.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate; in particular to the Minister for his efforts in replying to many of the questions. There were more unanswered questions to which many of us looks forward to receiving either a mass of letters, or a very long letter, in the near future. I hope that the Minister will also draw the debate to the attention of the Secretary of State because it is of key importance.
	It was nice again to hear my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He always reminisces about the past, often selectively. But he was right to mention the revival of the fleet under the Red Ensign. We all welcome that. But I say to him that because scheduled transportation is a slave to the clock, it does not matter to shippers and our industry whether goods come in or out under the Red Ensign or the Liberian flag. They want regular and consistent deliveries.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, reminded us how full are the Dover Straits. I remember opening the latest radar there in the 1980s. Again, that is now outdated due to the amount of traffic. It serves only to strengthen my argument that we need ports other than Zeebrugge and Southampton as our major container ports to take traffic out of the Dover Straits and reduce the possibility of accidents.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for mentioning sport and recreation. He is welcome to enjoy the good surfing at Thurso and I look forward to seeing him there. I was sad that he made no mention of petroleum carriers and power generation at sea, about which he knows a great deal. Perhaps we should have another debate to allow him to do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with his fund of knowledge, was right to say that the MCA has been a success and to raise concerns about standards of seamanship.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the "ro-ro" ferry between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. However, he did not tell your Lordships that in 1998 the then Minister of Shipping, Glenda Jackson, refused to support an application for European funding under the EU's PACT programme for a direct Scotland-Continent ferry service. She did so on the basis that the Government wanted to use the PACT fund only for rail projects, thereby discriminating against sea transport. One of the bonuses of devolution was that the matter was referred to Scotland. With cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, funds were applied for and obtained. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly said, we now have a successful service.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that the Government have improved the situation—possibly turned it around—by the introduction of short-sea shipping grants, which I am sure he will welcome?

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome anything that will help, but I do not believe that they have turned the situation around. There is an opportunity to help, but more must be done to assist the trans-shipment of goods into ports. We must use the railways to take our goods much closer to our industries in the north and the midlands, rather than bringing them all through the large container ports of Felixstowe and Southampton.
	I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is far too long since we last had a debate on shipping and maritime policies. I hope that we have another soon, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Deaths and Casualties

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: rose to call attention to the trends in the number of road deaths and casualties; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am pleased to be able to bring forward a debate in your Lordships' House today on road deaths and casualties. I look forward to the contributions of various noble Lords with great interests because I know that they have a wealth of experience to bring to bear on the subject.
	First, I want to declare some interests. I am a Suffolk county councillor, chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive and a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport.
	God willing, few of us will ever be involved in a rail or air crash. That is the statistical reality. However, with some 3,500 deaths each year on our roads and a staggering 35,000 injuries caused by road crashes, the chances are that each one of us will, during our lifetime, be involved in some way or other in such a tragedy.
	As is so often the case, it is sad that regular repetition of those figures has the effect of blunting their meaning. But anyone who has ever been involved in a serious road crash, or who has observed at close quarters the after-effects of one, will know that the outcomes can be truly devastating. In that rather hard-hearted way that accountants have, the cost of a death on our roads has been estimated at £1 million, but the personal cost is beyond measure.
	So why is it that we as a society are prepared to tolerate levels of death and injury on our roads which we would never accept on the rail network or within the aviation sector? It is easy to speculate, but my guess is that it has something to do with the development in our society of the culture which creates blame but does not accept responsibility. It is always very easy to blame other individuals or organisations for their failings when things go wrong, rather than to accept our own responsibility for fault and to adjust our behaviour where necessary. And so we have created a world in which some people believe that their right to arrive at their destination in the shortest possible time is a goal which overrides the personal safety of others on the road.
	It is of course true to say that in this country we have among the lowest rates of death and injury on the road in the world. That is to be welcomed, but nevertheless there is no room for complacency. We know, for example, that we do not perform well in international league tables when it comes to child pedestrian casualties. That is particularly telling in disadvantaged areas, where a child is 15 times more likely to suffer from an accident on the road than in a more well-heeled area.
	Between 1983 and 1993 there was a sharp reduction in the number of road deaths. Since then, the rate of reduction has, sadly, slowed up considerably. But perhaps that is not too surprising given that traffic growth is up; the number of police officers dedicated to traffic enforcement is down; worryingly, we see signs that seatbelt wearing is declining; and the mobile phone has become a new menace on the road. In this time also, drink-driving and driving under the influence of drugs has increased. And so between 2001 and 2002 road deaths fell by just 19 and serious injuries by 153.
	Clearly, something has to be done. The Government have, in their 10-year plan, set some ambitious targets for accident rates, so I first want to ask the Minister whether, in the context of the factors I have just outlined, he is still confident that those targets will be met. In 1999, the Government's road safety document, Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone, was widely welcomed. It gave a clear list of actions which the Government were going to take. Four years later, where are we?
	The Government have changed the law with regard to school crossing patrols; introduced mandatory logbooks for learner drivers; tightened seatbelt exemptions for local delivery drivers; and strengthened police powers for roadside testing. That is pretty much it. We are still awaiting proposals for improved driver training and testing, evidential roadside breath testing and the changes to road traffic penalties which were recommended by the Home Office some years ago.
	The Government have considered and rejected a strategy to introduce a new hierarchy of roads, a national speed management strategy and additional police powers to undertake targeted breath testing. They have also ruled out lowering the legal blood alcohol limit. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs for a Government who say they are committed to road safety. I am afraid it suggests to me that they have been well and truly nobbled by the motoring lobby and the sensationalist journalists who serve it.
	I want to concentrate today on the issue of speed. All respectable road safety literature and evidence from all around the world supports the relationship between speed and both the frequency and severity of crashes. Excessive or inappropriate speed is the single highest contributory factor in road accidents. In America, for example, those states where the limit was increased substantially in 1996 have seen a 35 per cent rise in death rates, far outstripping the rise in other states where the limits were left the same.
	There is a growing body of support for a national speed limit strategy within which local authorities can develop a hierarchy of roads. It would be based on their type, the level of risk and the desired function and usage, rather than the current system of historic factors and average current speed. This is of particular importance on rural roads. Sixty per cent of all fatalities are on rural roads—they are far more dangerous than motorways. The concept of a rural road hierarchy is supported by, among others, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, the road safety campaigners Brake, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. In the light of that, I want to ask the Minister why the Government have decided not to proceed with it.
	The other significant area of concern, as I have said, is that of child pedestrians in urban areas, where we fare far worse than other European countries. The home zones initiative is to be welcomed, as is the Government's funding for pilot areas, but only 24 in the whole country were funded last year. At that rate of progress, it would probably take 100 years before the country could be said to be calmed.
	To make matters worse, the statutory guidance promised when the Transport Act 2000 was enacted has still not been issued. That is now a matter of urgency. The Health Development Agency has demonstrated that a national extension of the home zones initiative would reduce child pedestrian injuries by many thousands every year.
	While on the subject of traffic calming, I noticed with interest the growing backlash against measures such as road humps and chicanes, which has led in parts of London to a proposal to use speed cameras to enforce the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Lo and behold, that, too, has led to moaning in certain parts of the motoring lobby. They want neither traffic calming nor speed cameras, so perhaps I could offer a radical suggestion: why do they not try sticking to the speed limit?
	Some five years ago, a very close friend of mine received the call that every parent dreads: his teenage daughter had been knocked down by a speeding vehicle close to her home. For weeks her life hung in the balance, and, as she recovered, the extent of her injuries was revealed as massive. Due to the intensive care that she received in Addenbrooke's, the superb long-term treatment that she received at the specialist head injury unit at Tadworth, in Surrey, and, above all, her own indomitable spirit, she has made an amazing recovery and today is studying for a degree. I challenge those journalists who write stories about speed cameras and traffic-calming to go to Tadworth and talk to Adele or young people like her. When they listen to her story, they should remember that she is the lucky one because she is still here to tell the story.
	The recent spate of speed-camera stories has given rise to an entire new mythology, so it is about time we put some facts straight. First, research consistently shows that speed cameras reduce casualties. A Department for Transport study has shown a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites. Those findings have been backed up by work carried out by the West London Camera Partnership and evidence from other countries. A recent study in Cambridgeshire by Imperial College has concluded that cameras at certain sites can reduce collisions by 45 per cent, with beneficial effects recorded up to two kilometres away from the camera.
	Until the Transport Act 2000, the police were constrained from using cameras by the fact that their administration was costly to the police authority. Under the netting-off provisions of the Act, the police have been able to retain enough of the proceeds of the fines to cover costs, and the remainder goes to the Treasury. Police authorities are not lining their own pockets by introducing speed cameras, and I find it very difficult to imagine that any police authority would introduce cameras simply so that it could send money to Gordon Brown.
	I have always taken the view that the proceeds of speed camera fines, estimated currently at £20 million, should be retained by the police and local authorities for investment in road safety. Ironically, the Government rejected that proposal on the grounds that the public would regard it as a revenue-raising exercise—but, of course, they are doing that anyway. However, I still believe that that would be the best way forward. More than enforcement, engineering and education are key, but they cost money. It would be a nice fit if the money raised from enforcement could be used for engineering and education.
	For the netting-off procedure to apply, there must be a local safety camera partnership, led by the Highways Agency and the police. A camera can be sited only where there have been at least four crashes involving deaths or serious injuries on a given 1.5-kilometre stretch of road in the past three years, and where at least 20 per cent of drivers exceed the speed limit. Cameras are not sited for the generation of income.
	There has been a fall in the number of dedicated traffic police and, with it, the number of successful prosecutions for offences such as dangerous driving and speeding. Critics of speed cameras point to the fact that they only catch speeding drivers and do not deal with other dangerous manoeuvres such as tail-gating. That is true, but without cameras we would not have more police, and the situation would simply worsen. With police authorities hard-pressed and road traffic enforcement not a priority in national policing plans, cameras are essential, although no substitute for traffic police.
	Given the lateness of the hour and the business still to be transacted, I shall make three final, brief points. First, since we have debated the matter at length during the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, I will simply express my concern that the Government have still not chosen to reduce the legal blood alcohol limit, despite the fact that we have one of the highest permitted levels in Europe, and given that a reduction would be supported by PACTS, the RoSPA and the RNIB, among others.
	Secondly, will the Minister comment on why the recent consultation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, A Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond, does not propose to cover work-related driving? Given that the Government's own Road Safety Strategy has identified business drivers as particularly at risk on the road, that is a glaring omission.
	Thirdly, perhaps the Minister might comment on the road safety benefits of a move to Central European Time and the extra hour of evening daylight that it would bring. Perhaps I ought not to have mentioned that in the presence of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
	In concluding, I shall quote from a recent publication by the AA, which, I am sure, sees itself as the voice of the responsible motorist:
	"preventing death on the road need be neither expensive nor complex. It does need financial investment but it also requires discipline from authorities in engaging people with the right skills to measure where people are being routinely killed and maimed, to apply systematically the known remedies, and to maintain roads properly".
	None of us would disagree with that; but is it not telling that nowhere in that little homily does it mention the responsibility of motorists to obey the speed limit? Coming from the AA, that is a disgrace, and it is our problem. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on securing this important debate, and on her brilliant speech. The debate comes just one week after the national day of action on road traffic speed, organised by Transport 2000 last Wednesday.
	I declare two relevant unpaid interests: I am an honorary vice-president of Transport 2000 and president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, a position that I was honoured to take over from my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, who will also speak in this debate, is my deputy president in RoSPA. I am proud to be associated with both organisations, because in their own ways they have played a huge part in campaigning to reduce the annual slaughter on our roads.
	It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I agreed with every word of the noble Baroness's speech. The number of people killed and injured on our roads each year—to say nothing of the lives of friends and relatives wrecked as a consequence—is a national disgrace, particularly because virtually every accident is avoidable. Almost all road crashes are caused by, or involve, human error, whether mistakes or deliberate violations of the law. The vast majority, therefore, of the 3,431 deaths and 300,000 injuries that occurred in road crashes in 2002 were due to people using the road in a dangerous or careless manner. Ultimately, the only way to reduce that appalling toll is to change how drivers, riders and walkers behave on the road. That requires a co-ordinated strategy based on the three Es—education, engineering and enforcement.
	On education, training and publicity must be provided to road users so that, with appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes, they can use the roads safely. Engineering of roads and vehicles physically affects how road users behave; for example, through speed reduction measures. Enforcement supports and complements the other two, and aims to deter irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful behaviour, through investigation and, if necessary, punishment of offenders. Drivers must be made aware that there is a strong chance of getting caught if they behave dangerously, and that they will receive sufficiently severe sanctions to act as a deterrent to such behaviour.
	There is no doubt that the introduction of new laws has helped to change public attitudes and behaviour in ways that have reduced the rate of road casualties. We see very few people in the front seats of cars not wearing seat belts these days, although we have a long way to go in persuading passengers in the back to put them on, and there are still terrifyingly large numbers of parents who allow their children to be unrestrained on the back seats. I cannot remember when I last saw a motorcyclist or pillion rider in this country not wearing a safety helmet, which is a big change from a few years ago, although that is not true in other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
	The public attitude to drinking and driving has also changed. It is no longer socially acceptable to take a chance and "have one for the road", and we do not often hear the boast in the club or the pub, "I drive better after a few drinks" in the way that we did a few years ago. The introduction of blood alcohol testing had a profound effect on the casualty figures in the 1980s and early 1990s. Drink-drive deaths hit a peak in 1982, when they reached 1,550, with over 8,000 people seriously injured. By 1999, they were down to 460 and 2,470 respectively. Worryingly, however, they have been creeping up each year since, with the provisional figures for 2002 being 560 deaths and 2,820 seriously injured.
	As the noble Baroness said, Her Majesty's Government have so far resisted pressure from a wide range of road safety organisations—including RoSPA, the UK Commission for Integrated Transport and Sub-Committee B of your Lordships' European Union Committee—to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams, which would put us in line with every other country in the European Union except Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg. It has been proven that any amount of alcohol impairs a driver and increases his or her accident risk. At levels between 50 milligrams and 80 milligrams, drivers are two to four times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than drivers with no alcohol in their blood.
	In Britain, about 80 road users per year are killed in accidents in which at least one driver or motorcyclist had blood alcohol between 50 and 80 milligrams. The Government's Road Safety Strategy estimates that reducing the limit to 50 milligrams would save 50 lives, and prevent 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries each year. Not only drivers with between 50 milligrams and 80 milligrams would be affected. Reviews of the effect of lowering the limit in other countries have shown that it can be accompanied by a reduction in drinking and driving at much higher levels of alcohol as well. A lower limit would send out a general education message and set the tone for no drinking and driving.
	A lower limit should be introduced as part of a wider package of drink-driving measures, including new education and enforcement initiatives, one of which should be the introduction of random breath testing. To those who argue that this would erode civil liberties, I simply say that drink drivers erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the police wider powers.
	The police have a critical part to play in the enforcement of the newest and very welcome road safety initiative taken by the Government—banning the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham deserves considerable credit for helping to bring this about, because he successfully took a Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House to do just that in 1999. There is no need tonight to rehearse the arguments that he and many other Members deployed during the passage of the Bill, especially at Second Reading on 9th July 1999.
	However, two further aspects arise from the ban that need attention. First, all the available research shows that the use of a hands-free mobile by drivers is just as distracting as a hand-held. There is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel if the brain is not connected to the hands. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that this matter will be kept under review, and that if evidence is forthcoming to support a complete ban, the Government will not shrink from that, however great the shrieks of anguish from the mobile phone industry.
	Secondly, does my noble friend agree that, should employers respond to this new law by supplying hands-free kits to their staff, they could fall foul of health and safety laws if an investigation determined that the use of a phone—whether hands-free or not—contributed to an accident? Does he further agree that, as part of the management of work-related road safety, employers should provide their staff with clear guidance on the use of mobile phones?
	Finally, I turn to the more controversial road safety measure of speed cameras. On this issue, the general public show far greater common sense than certain hysterical pro-motorist writers in national newspapers and television commentators, or indeed, I am sorry to say, the former official transport spokesman for the Conservative Party in the other place. I commend to the House the poll of polls released by Transport 2000 on 29th November, which was based on six surveys. It shows that support for the use of speed cameras averages 74 per cent. The latest poll included in the calculation was carried out by ICM for the BBC in October and showed support for speed cameras running at 75 per cent with only 19 per cent against. According to the work done by the Transport Research Laboratory, around one third of fatal crashes are due to excessive speed. For every 1 mph reduction in a driver's speed, the chance of being involved in a crash drops by 5 per cent. Hitting a pedestrian at 35 mph is twice as likely to kill them as hitting them at 30 mph.
	The noble Baroness referred to the experience in the United States, where there was an attempt to raise speed limits in 22 states. The consequence was that 1,880 more deaths took place on the road over a period of three years, compared with those states that did not raise limits. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration now advocates the adoption of speed-camera laws similar to ours in the United Kingdom, to help counteract the rising death toll on American roads. So we must not allow a vocal minority of motorists to distort this issue. Speed cameras are the motorist's friend because they make the roads safer for everyone. They, along with the other road safety measures which have been described by the noble Baroness and to which I have referred in my speech, are all essential players in achieving what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and, I am sure, all the other speakers who will follow so rightly want—a permanent and continuing reduction in road casualty figures.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has been a good day for transport in your Lordships' House. I add my congratulations and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on securing the second short debate today.
	The obvious place for me to start is to suggest to the noble Baroness that she read what I said about short sea shipping—to move a lot of goods from the roads to coastal and short sea vessels. To remind your Lordships, it is not the old fuddy-duddy industry of the past. Nowadays, there are modern vessels able to take 150 lorries and containers and travel around our coast at up to 40 knots. If we could move a considerable number of those containers—that travel up our motorways full and return empty—to the sea to get closer to our industries and retail areas, it would hugely reduce the number of accidents on our roads, especially our motorways. We could also move more containers on to the railways. Doubtless, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will want to say something about that in due course.
	I now turn to two aspects which cause accidents that are rarely mentioned—sleep and eyesight. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, both mentioned alcohol limits. However, it is considered that driver fatigue causes more accidents than alcohol, yet it is barely mentioned. If the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, contributed to the debate on driver fatigue and eyesight with the same energy and enthusiasm as he exhibited when speaking about speed cameras, mobile telephones and alcohol, we could raise the profile and get the message across.
	What do the Government think of the research done by the Loughborough Sleep Research Centre? I was delighted to read that it had just won a Prince Michael of Kent international road safety award for excellence for its ground-breaking research. The centre has an extremely important message, which must be got across.
	The research shows that one is considerably more vulnerable driving at times when one is normally asleep, especially from two to three o'clock in the morning. Sleep-related vehicle accidents are more common in the mid-afternoon than in the rest of the normal waking day. Male drivers under 30 years old are the main victims of such accidents. The risk of death or serious injury to the driver may well be greater than in the average accident. Sleep-related vehicle accidents comprise about 16 to 23 per cent of road accidents, the higher figures being relevant for motorways. Because of the profound influence of the circadian rhythm of sleepiness on sleep-related vehicle accidents, they can occur even after a short period of driving.
	Given that evidence, what support are the Government giving to those good people who are trying to work out systems to alert lorry drivers in their cab? It is not that difficult. We can build in many factors—for instance, eye movement between mirrors or how the steering wheel operates. Systems are being invented and developed with all those factors built in. When the normal, safe driving pattern changes, alarms go off in the driver's cab. Surely, that is the sort of area that we should work in. We need prevention, rather than having to clear up the horrible mess afterwards.
	All of us who have been involved in deaths on the roads know the misery and emotional trauma that such deaths cause. It is estimated that each death costs about £1 million. It is an area in which positive measures can be taken. I am sure that the Government will want to help.
	I have raised before the subject of eyesight. The results of research done by Specsavers, who did eight "Drive Safe" roadshows last year in August and September, corroborated what they had discovered a year earlier. I raised the matter then in your Lordships' House. One in four motorists is driving with eyes that are not fit to pass an eyesight test. That must also contribute to accidents. If a motorist hits the kerb, the tyre bursts and there is an accident. The statistics will show that the tyre burst, not that the driver did not see where he was going or that he or she was sleepy and should not have been driving. None of us knows the full extent of the hazard.
	I know that research is being done into the eyesight problem and that the industry is working with the research units. Can the Minister tell me whether the peripheral visual field defects project is complete? Has a final report been presented? I also want to ask him about the central scotoma and driving contract that was recently tendered for. Has it been awarded? To whom? When will it be delivered?
	Finally, I ask the Minister where we have got to in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, speaking for the Government, told me in March that the Commission's proposed working group on eyesight standards for driver licensing had not yet met. Has that group now met? If so, what has been achieved so far? When will we hear the results? What attitude is being taken by the UK Government and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency?
	All of us regret deaths and accidents on the roads, but it is not simply a matter of speed cameras, mobile phones and alcohol. There are deeper reasons, and it is those reasons that we ought to make a major effort to address. Prevention is far better than the result of a nasty accident.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this important debate. All too often, such debates do not get the attention of your Lordships' House. I concur with the strong concerns expressed about drink-related deaths and accidents, as well as those expressed about fatigue. I agree with the comments about speed-reduction measures.
	Road safety is something that effects 99 per cent of people in this country every day of their lives. Yet, inexplicably, the issue receives not nearly enough public attention and scrutiny. Although we are, rightly, shocked when anyone loses their life in a homicide or a terrorist attack, news of equally precious lives lost on the roads is generally relegated to local television news and a couple of paragraphs in the local newspaper. We seem to have become almost inoculated against the shock of hearing about road accidents.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has already said, 3,341 people died in road accidents in 2002. It is encouraging that that figure represents a significant reduction over the past decade, but no one should lose sight of the human suffering behind the sterile statistics. By my reckoning, on average, every day of the year, nine British families are devastated by the news that a father, mother, son or daughter has died on the road.
	It goes without saying that the sustained fall in road-accident fatalities since 1992 is extremely good news. However, our general response should be tempered on two fronts. First, although the number of fatalities has been reduced, the overall number of road accidents remains essentially unchanged, hovering between 300,000 and 350,000 a year. Secondly, the fact that the number of fatalities has been reduced by 19 per cent in the past decade should be cause less for celebration than for a renewed determination to allocate more resources and introduce more measures to win this winnable war.
	As the father of four young children—they are all under the age of eight—and as someone who travels by scooter, I shall confine my remarks today to the specific issues of child road safety and to measures affecting people perched on two, rather than four or more, wheels. I welcome the manner in which the Department for Transport has put a special focus on reducing the number of children who are killed or injured in road accidents each year. We pledge each newborn child education and healthcare, and I believe that our children are entitled to expect as a right the freedom to walk and cycle in safety and confidence. That is obviously not the situation today.
	Road traffic accidents remain the leading cause of accidental injury among children and young people. In road accidents in 2002, 179 children died and 4,419 children were seriously injured. Of those casualties, roughly 60 per cent were pedestrians, 20 per cent were car passengers and 15 per cent were cyclists.
	So what are our children entitled to expect? First, and probably foremost, they are entitled to effective road-traffic calming in the streets around their schools and recreational areas. Obviously, those schemes reduce the speed of traffic and make drivers aware of children nearby. Unquestionably, those measures save lives.
	I am aware that the department has provided a small amount of funding—I note that it is a comparatively small amount of funding—to local authorities over the past couple of years for various child safety projects, including the introduction of 20-miles-per-hour zones. I am sure that the Minister will mention more in his winding-up speech. Other funds have been made available for the building of so-called home zones.
	But how many of these potentially dangerous areas will be calmed unless a great deal more funding is provided? Surely it is not difficult for local authorities to identify those areas where children are most at risk. Perhaps they could use road accident statistics from recent years and then introduce the 20 miles-per-hour speed limit, speed humps and as much signage as possible. Purely and simply, traffic calming should become obligatory around every inner-city school and recreational area. I note the comment made earlier that, often, traffic-calming measures are taken in more well-off areas. There should not be any discrimination whatever.
	Some people may ask, "Would this be cost effective"? In my research for today's debate, much mention was made of the words, "cost effective". In order to make that assessment, someone must put a price on a child's life. Who would dare do that? In your Lordships' House, we have a tendency to mention a great deal of statistics, but I would simply point out that the statistics indicate that road accidents cost the country more than £3.5 billion every year. That is scarcely cost effective.
	Secondly, children need to be properly educated in order to stay safe on the roads. Kerbcraft is one such practical child-pedestrian training scheme that is being implemented in 100 areas in England during the next five years, and there are other similar programmes. Perhaps the department could swiftly assess the merits of all the available options and then ensure that the most effective road-safety programme is taught in every school in Britain. It is important that road-traffic safety is taught in schools. Once again, there is no time for dithering and weakness. What can be more important than teaching our young children how to cross busy roads, use pavements, read signs, and so forth?
	Thirdly, every child cyclist should undergo a training programme that is run either through their school or directly by their local authority. The department's own evaluation of several ongoing pilot schemes for children aged 10 reports that,
	"those who have undertaken cycle training were significantly safer in on-road tests and road and safety quizzes than their untrained peers".
	Once again, "several" is not enough. Pilot schemes help a few, when everyone is entitled to have access to such knowledge.
	Fourthly, it is just as important to have adult training schemes, which are required for our children to be saved from the carelessness of their parents. We now come to the importance of wearing seat belts. Overall, standards have improved in recent years, with more children seen safely buckled in their back seats. But, every now and again, it is possible to notice a child sitting in the middle of the back, leaning forward between the front seats.
	A friend of mine who works in a children's hospital named this the "rocket launch" position; impact will immediately send the child through the windscreen. He deals with the tragic consequences of such crass parental stupidity day after day. Some progress has been made in parental training, with the development of One Step Ahead packs for parents of children up to the age of five. Evaluation has shown significant gains. But, again, a lack of resources seems to prevent a national rollout.
	It is hard not to conclude that while much outstanding and innovative work is being done to improve road safety among children, a lack of funding inhibits progress. As I said before, "cost effective" seems to be a phrase that appears all too often in the department's literature. In this particular area, if something needs to be done, the funds must be found. As a father himself, I feel confident that the Chancellor would agree.
	I now briefly turn to the issue of motorcyclists and cyclists. I am aware that this particular group is not popular among many road users. Indeed, motorists remind me of that every day. However, personal experience leads me to suggest that the single most effective means of improving road safety for those of us who choose to travel on two wheels would be to give motorcyclists and cyclists the right to drive in bus lanes. I know that I am barking up a tree, which we have done for many years with little success. But it would be encouraging to have some news from the Government on that issue. Most accidents tend to occur when motorcyclists or cyclists weave between cars. While that practice cannot be defended, it would be significantly reduced by opening bus lanes.
	In general, few would disagree that the use of motorcycles, scooters and cycles ought to be encouraged, not only because they obviously promote better health and a cleaner environment, but also because they significantly ease traffic congestion in urban areas.
	In conclusion, some people may study today's business in your Lordships' House and decide that this debate is a minor issue. I am absolutely appalled by such complacency. How can it be a minor issue when last year it cost almost 3,500 lives? As I mentioned earlier, the successful implementation of various initiatives during the past decade has reduced the number of road deaths by 19 per cent. We have the means to save more lives on the roads. We must have the courage and will to seize the opportunity.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate. I also congratulate previous speakers on making some unique and positive contributions about this important subject. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke about road users. He probably meant car or lorry users. I am a cyclist and a pedestrian; I believe that the noble Lord uses a motor cycle or a scooter. We have as much right to use the roads as everyone else. On speaking about roads, does that include the pavement or footway? Pedestrians have rights too, which I should like to cover today.
	We have heard a great deal of very difficult statistics today. One might compare the publicity that road accidents do not receive with that which rail accidents do receive, when one or two people may be killed in a year. On this issue, we are talking about 3,000, 3,500 or 4,000 people killed, and many more seriously injured. Pedestrians are the worst case because they are virtually always the victims. They are unprotected victims when compared with people in their padded cars. When people talk about roads and accidents, one must ask, "Are you talking about this as a car driver, nicely protected with your family in the back, all nicely belted up without their heads between the front seats? Or are you talking as a citizen who has the right to move around on a road or a pavement in a safe manner"?
	Only last week during the debate on a Question one noble Lord described speed humps as "vicious". They may be vicious to someone driving a car over them too fast, but from the point of view of a pedestrian or cyclist, it is the car that is vicious. Roll on: for me, the more speed humps, the better, even if I do have to slow down on my bicycle.
	Speed is very important and it matters. I shall cite another statistic from the Health Development Agency. If pedestrians are hit at 20 miles per hour, 5 per cent are killed; if they are hit at 40 miles per hour, 85 per cent will die. As other noble Lords have pointed out, speed is a major factor in road deaths. A number of sources can be quoted to support that, but all noble Lords know the statistics and I think that we are all agreed that speed is a major factor in road accidents.
	The question to be answered is how to stop drivers speeding. Given that police resources are as stretched as ever, it is clear that speed cameras must be a solution. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, quite rightly mentioned other solutions, but it is true that speed cameras have a major role to play.
	I was astonished to read in The Times yesterday of death threats made against Mary Williams, the chief executive of Brake, a respectable organisation which campaigns for slower road speeds for cars and lorries. In line with that, threats have been made against Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales. He is an enthusiastic and professional advocate of speed cameras who is seeking to reduce road accidents from the police point of view. It is quite extraordinary that people who want to break the law by speeding feel that the way to improve their lot is to make death threats against someone who is trying to encourage people to obey the law. I hope that the police will take those threats seriously and do something about it; I am sure they will.
	Brake states that casualties are reduced by 35 per cent at camera sites. I know that I have cited another statistic, but it has to be said. To make things even easier for motorists, I have read that a map is available on the Web showing the position of every speed camera in the country. Further, there is the ridiculous idea that speed cameras have to be painted yellow. Why should people know where they are? The argument is that it is a part of educating motorists, but all they have to do is to obey the law. That is perfectly clear. Would the same argument apply if potential burglars or muggers were given access to the location of every video camera and policeman so that they could assess the risk of being caught before they committed their crimes? Just because speeding is thought of as a middle-class crime because most people in that class drive cars does not mean that it is right.
	We need to review the whole business of speed cameras. If you exceed the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Why should we wait for three people to be killed before a camera is put up on that site? Why should not the revenue from the fines paid by people stupid enough to break the law be used for things other than paying for the cameras, such as the engineering and other solutions suggested tonight? We need more cameras rather than fewer.
	I also welcome the 20 miles per hour zones referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. However, they too need speed cameras because children can play with a relative degree of safety in those zones. Parents and other carers can take some comfort from the fact that their charges will not be mown down by cars speeding down narrow streets between parked cars. That is a serious problem. Again, such zones are reported to reduce child deaths and injuries by 67 per cent.
	I turn to the question of rural roads, on which I spend quite some time cycling or walking along. If there is no footpath and if there are bends and high hedges, then that is when you should not do it: you must take a taxi, bus, train or use your own car because it is dangerous. Drivers speeding around corners cannot stop or move out of the way even if no one is coming in the other direction. Again, I believe the answer is to impose speed limits appropriate to the road, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
	We move on to the difficult question of who is to enforce all those extremely useful speed cameras. I, too, have read the useful guidance to employers on managing work-related road safety issued by the Health and Safety Executive. It is a good document, but it does not address the question of why the Health and Safety Executive does not put its guidance into practice. I have spoken many times in the House about what the HSE does on the railways and the roads—on the latter, it does very little. It says that it has no budget; perhaps it should transfer some of the budget available for inspecting level crossings and so forth which, to be frank, does not need to be done, to enforcing the law on people driving their cars and lorries on the roads for work-related purposes. Why does the executive not do that and when will it start?
	Other noble Lords may have read in The Times today what I suspect is an anti-speed camera piece. Interestingly, it states that if you are caught speeding, your insurance increases by 20 per cent if you are caught once, 32.5 per cent on being caught twice and on the third speeding offence, an increase of 61 per cent. If you and a partner are caught and so amass five convictions, it is unlikely that you will be able to keep your insurance. That is quite a strong disincentive to speeding and the insurance industry deserves a little congratulation.
	As my noble friend Lord Faulkner observed, lower road speeds are popular with pedestrians and cyclists. They are a vote winner. However, I was interested in the comments made by Professor David Begg, chair of the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, who sounds a note of caution by stating that,
	"all profits should be invested in improvements"
	in order for the Government to avoid a "damaging public revolt". I think that he should have referred to a "damaging motorist revolt". As other noble Lords have said, it is not the public who object, it is the motorist. On the next occasion that I see him, I shall suggest that in future he use different wording. Speed cameras are a real vote winner with the public.
	In conclusion, I urge the Government, in all sincerity, to ensure that vociferous car drivers who break the law should be dealt with by the law and not pandered to. The Government should also urge the representative groups of such motorists to provide more leadership in encouraging their members to obey the law.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for instigating this important debate. I also thank the charity RoadPeace, which does much for families affected by road deaths and casualties.
	As noble Lords have said, the number of road deaths and casualties in this country is quite unacceptable. I am afraid that I shall repeat some of the statistics cited by other noble Lords, but they bear repetition because they accentuate the problem.
	Ten people are killed on the roads every day, with 300 a year in London alone. In Europe, 40,000 a year are killed, and worldwide the figure is 1 million a year. Ten million people worldwide are permanently disabled. Road traffic injuries are the second largest cause of ill health and premature death after HIV/AIDS. In the international arena, more emphasis is coming from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which has designated a fourth road safety week for 5th to 11th April next year. With Her Majesty's Government aiming for a 40 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries, I join other noble Lords in looking forward to hearing the Minister's response to the debate.
	There is much concern over how the national figures are calculated. Actual deaths and casualties seem to be far higher than the official figures suggest. There appear to be a number of loopholes in the methods of compiling these statistics. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it does not appear mandatory for the police to be informed of an incident where people are injured. In addition, with one in 20 drivers being uninsured, it is unlikely that they will come forward to report an accident.
	The Traffic Engineering and Control report of 1991—I know it is some years ago but it bears looking at—suggests that the official figures for serious cases should be increased by one third and those for lesser injuries by two thirds. The Transport Research Laboratory in 1977 stated that the number of serious injuries should be increased by a factor of 2.7 and lesser injuries by 1.7.
	This all paints a very sorry picture. As to the cost to the country, various figures have been bandied about. We all know that it is totally excessive and unacceptable, but we must establish how many actual road deaths and serious casualties there are in the first place. Perhaps the Minister will expand on this figure.
	I have always in the past believed that it is best not to bring personal issues into your Lordships' House, but on this occasion I will. It will help to illustrate the effect of road deaths on families. My mother-in-law was killed in a car accident just over a year ago. She looked after her husband, my father-in-law, who was not in the best of health. When she died my wife had to look after him. I had to take unpaid leave and look after two teenage children and Poppy, who is now three. We had to take on a nanny. My father-in-law died six weeks after my mother-in-law's killing. My wife still feels the need for a nanny because of the trauma she has suffered.
	This illustrates two points. First, that the cost is not solely concerned with the accident itself; there are widespread ongoing costs which affect both the individual and the Treasury. It also shows that deaths occur outside the accident, whether of those who are being cared for when their carer is killed or those who cannot take it any longer and take their own lives. This issue has to be looked at and we have to find a way of reducing the effects of these dreadful incidents.
	So how do we reduce these figures? Car safety has improved with the fitting of airbags, ABS, seat belts, crumple zones and side impact bars. I gather further measures are being introduced to regulate the design of 4x4s. Speed limits have to be examined and reduced where necessary. Perhaps more police should be allocated to traffic duties. We also have to consider the effect of drink on driving. Perhaps we should be looking at zero tolerance. I look forward to hearing the Minister on this issue. Advances have been made in relation to the detection of drug use, which must be a good thing.
	The most important problem has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and that is the mindset of drivers when they get behind a wheel. From when they are learning to drive until they are drivers like us, everyone has to remember that when they get behind the wheel of a car they are getting behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. I look forward to what the Government have to say on this issue.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for instigating this debate on a topic that is only too easy to shy away from. I have had an interest in this subject for a number of years. This interest is reflected in my membership of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—better known as PACTS—and my position as deputy chair of RoSPA, working there with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
	I wish first to look at the subject of work-related road safety and to stress the importance of this being taken seriously by employers, employees and the Government. When I served on the Health and Safety Commission for six years prior to coming to your Lordships' House I was particularly interested in its work in this area. I am therefore pleased to note that the Health and Safety Executive, together with the Department of Transport, have recently published guidance for employers entitled Driving at Work. Additionally, health and safety commissioners are currently seeking views on the development of their overall safety strategy up until the year 2010.
	However, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the development of their overall safety strategy does not include any reference to work-related road safety, an omission highlighted by RoSPA. The safety management message of the Health and Safety Commission will be credible only if investigation and enforcement arrangements are developed to cope adequately with any failures to manage road risk by employers.
	Work-related road accidents are the biggest cause of work-related accidental deaths. Between 800 and 1,000 people are killed each year in work-related road traffic accidents. Occupational risks to workers who drive as part of their work—those who cover significant distances by car or van—are at the same level of accidental death as those working in the acknowledged high-risk sectors such as construction or agriculture. These drivers are 50 per cent more likely to be injured in accidents than other drivers. This fact is too often forgotten, even by the Health and Safety Commission, and should be emphasised to greater effect in the future.
	But this statistic is not surprising. The pressure to get jobs done as quickly as possible is often paramount in the field of work, and representatives of companies, who are often on some form of commission, tend to work long hours at a fast pace and are therefore especially vulnerable. Many hundreds of thousands of working days are lost annually as a result of injury in work-related crashes.
	It is obvious that employers can do much to exacerbate this—developing an excessive working/driving hours culture for example—but it is also obvious that employers can greatly reduce risk, and the better ones do. Training drivers to a higher standard, making sure vehicles are safe and planning journeys in a sensible manner can all help to cut road accidents.
	Business can only gain if safety measures are followed and built upon. Such measures affect levels of risk both faced by and created by employees at work on the roads. This has been considerably underestimated so far. Raising awareness about safety measures and working with both employers and trade unions to encourage them must be a key element of the Government's road safety strategy.
	Recently I was privileged to attend the fourteenth Westminster lecture on transport organised by PACTS. The speaker this year was Professor David Begg, to whom my noble friend referred, who holds, among other positions, the chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport and Director of the Centre for Transport Policy at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen.
	Professor Begg pointed out that, despite a number of horrendous crashes over the past few years, rail is one of the safest forms of passenger transport. The majority of casualties on rail are caused by trips or falls in stations. Aviation is an even bigger success story—six times safer than travelling by car and twice as safe as rail.
	So, as has been stated, the biggest challenge facing the UK in the transport field is safety on the roads. The professor offered a number of proposals to assist. Professor Begg believes that one key to achieving improved road safety targets is the need for an increased and highly visible traffic policing presence in order to detect and deal effectively with the wide-ranging causes of accidents and road casualties. Many have been mentioned in this Chamber tonight. He chose, in particular, drink-driving and driving while under the influence of drugs.
	The professor maintains that there is clear evidence linking those who have committed motoring offences with more serious criminal offences, and believes that an increase in traffic police would improve detection rates overall.
	A further issue he examined is drink-driver offences, which, again, we have mentioned. Evidence from a new USA study shows that lives could be saved each year if the allowed blood alcohol level was reduced to approximately 40 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. This, together with more targeted enforcement of the existing blood-alcohol level and legislation to enable the results of roadside breath testing to be admissible as evidence in court, would assist greatly, Professor Begg believes.
	He made other suggestions, including intelligent speed adaptation—that is, in-vehicle speed control; improved crash protection through front-end vehicle design, which is mandatory in a European directive to become effective from 2005; and early research to assess the benefits of extending driver rehabilitation from drink-driving to cover other motoring offences as well. For, as Professor Begg said:
	"We rightly expect airline pilots and our train, tube and bus drivers to be sober on duty. It is time to review the levels of blood alcohol acceptable in the drivers on our roads".
	Perhaps my noble friend will comment on some of these proposals when he replies.
	Finally, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, my interest in road deaths and casualties is not academic. My father was killed by a learner driver in Market Rasen in 1967. I, too, know at first hand the devastation that such an accident can cause. Anything we can do to alleviate such deaths can only be welcome.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I suspect I will not be the most popular speaker tonight because I do not agree with everything that has been said so far. I want first to make it clear that every death is a tragedy for someone. I felt particularly for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, because of their personal experience. We have had deaths in the family, but not from this cause. When someone's loved one has moved on to another world and one has not yet joined them, it can be very harrowing. If the death is accidental, the sense of senseless loss may be overwhelming. The feeling that something must be done becomes imperative; it becomes the major driving force in the life of those left behind, and for very good reason.
	I remember a judge saying, a long time ago, that hard cases make bad law. We, as legislators, must retain a sense of balance and proportion. Yet again, we are being asked to tell people what to do for their own good. That can arouse strong feelings among many people who believe that the Government are not there to nanny them along but to enable things to happen in their lives.
	I started looking at the relevant statistics. The first thing I realised is that the expression "saving lives" is difficult; you do not really save lives, you change the cause of premature death. The Government recently defined this, in the excellent report Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, as death before the age of 75. The major cause of such deaths, as I said in a debate the other day, is "others"—miscellaneous causes which are not even worth classifying. They make up 33 per cent of the causes of premature death. The next highest cause is coronary heart disease, at 18 per cent, followed by cancer at 17 per cent. So we work down till we reach road traffic accidents, at 2 per cent. So compared with all the other causes, I am afraid it is not the primary or even the main cause of premature death.
	Out of the 500,000 to 600,000 deaths in this country every year, 3,500 are caused by road traffic accidents. The big proportion is elsewhere. The question is: how should we be applying our limited financial resources—because the Government are always under pressure about where to find the money—in order to reduce the number of premature deaths caused by road traffic accidents? I was not convinced that speed cameras and speeding were necessarily that major a cause.
	Various statistics have been produced in this argument. Those quoted tonight have tended to come from PACTS, which says that, in recent tests, 47 per cent fewer people were killed. I think that information was from a study in Cambridgeshire, so it focused on certain accident sites in one part of England. I do not know whether that can be extrapolated elsewhere. As a scientist, I am always cautious about these things, but let us say that it can.
	Then I read that a one mile per hour reduction results in 5 per cent fewer crashes. I got worried about that figure because although it sounds good, other studies show that accident rates rise with traffic density. Reducing speed increases traffic density. Other studies show that the crash rate rises with a reduction in speed. So some of the statistics do not quite match, which worries me. It means that I do not trust those statistics as much as I should, which is dangerous.
	I found a report giving official police figures, although I do not know when these were produced. It said that the highest figure published by any police force is that 9 per cent of accidents are caused by speed, with many reporting a much lower figure. I worry about that; should not people be concentrating on what causes nine out of 10 accidents rather than what causes one out of 10? That is where I would put resources if they were limited.
	Prosecutions for dangerous driving and driving without due care have apparently gone down. That makes me think that policemen in cars, who can exercise discretion and sense, may well be better than mechanical traffic cameras which flash people on parts of the road.
	Another study by PACTS showed that according to self-reporting, 85 per cent of respondents admitted to exceeding the speed limit on occasion. There was general agreement that everyone did it. If it is so dangerous, there should be many more accidents. I suppose a speeding incident must be about the distance between speed cameras. If you go through four speed cameras, you lose your licence. Of those millions of speeding incidents every day, speeding may be a factor that contributes to a death in three of them. That makes you realise why drivers speed. Intuitively, they know that most of the time speeding does not result in an accident, let alone a death. Hammering drivers with statistics they know intuitively are not quite correct will lead to a loss of respect.
	I thought about this a bit more, and the trouble happens when trunk roads are involved. Speeding inappropriately in heavily built-up areas, with children playing on the pavement, is extremely dangerous. But I think the Traffic Research Laboratory would agree with the evidence that people travelling at the 85th and 90th percentile speeds have the lowest accident rates of any group of drivers.
	So we should be setting the speed limit for the design speed of the road. That, in some cases, means raising the speed limit of the road, particularly on motorways and trunk roads. There could well be a case for raising speed limits on certain trunk roads and motorways while keeping them rigidly enforced in built-up and urban areas and where pedestrians are not separated from the traffic, which is the important thing. On the fringes of towns a barrier may separate pedestrians from the road. The speed limits should be raised in those circumstances because people feel those speed limits are stupid and the traffic never gets out of town.
	Apparently, I have statistics that conflict completely with others, which say that when the speed limit was raised in certain US states by 10 mph, the 85th percentile was 70 mph and the accident rate dropped by 30 per cent. People all have figures that they can use for their own purposes.
	From my own experience, one of the big challenges is that if one lives in the country, one has to drive distances. If one is going to do business with other companies out in the country, one has to drive from A to B, and sometimes for quite a long way. If one drives very slowly—if, for example, I go at 60 mph on a long road that is straight and clear, I stop concentrating; the tiredness factor comes in, which is much more dangerous. If one is travelling a little bit faster, one starts being much more careful about one's distance to the next vehicle in front, one's sense of anticipation is keener, and one knows that one can observe speed limits within important speed-limit areas, because one can catch up in between, where the road is safe.
	Very few accidents happen on motorways as a result of speeding. Normally, something else happens, as with those poor people who were killed by the tank transporter that came across the central barrier. That was nothing to do with the speed at which they were travelling.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Earl says that he loses concentration at 60 mph so would rather go at 80 mph. I believe that he was not referring to motorways. What about pedestrians and cyclists? Does he not accept that the faster the vehicle is going, the more likely the pedestrians and cyclists are to be killed? He seems to ignore the fact that they have a right to be on those roads.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I absolutely and entirely agree. I was coming on to discuss what I would do about that, and I referred earlier to separating pedestrians from the road. I was talking about trunk roads, where the pedestrian is separated from the main road. One does not get cyclists going up motorways—and one should not get cyclists going up the A1, even when it is not a motorway. The noble Lord has made an important point.
	Separating slow-moving from fast-moving traffic would contribute much more to avoiding accidents. With the 85th and 90th percentile speeds, one's objective is to get traffic moving at approximately the same speed. The danger occurs when one has slow-moving traffic, such as someone mucking around at 40 mph in the slow lane of a motorway, and people are going at 70 mph or 80 mph down the over-taking lane of the motorway. If everyone goes about the same speed, we will get fewer accidents. There is a lot of evidence for that.
	People do have to travel around the countryside, so we should apply the money to eliminating accident blackspots. I have read somewhere that most accidents happen at some 250 blackspots around the country; if we applied the money to eliminating dangerous junctions and things like that, and separating pedestrian and cycling traffic on trunk roads, we would hit the problem much more. We should do that instead of trying to get at the people who are creating wealth for the country, trying to bring up a family and are otherwise law-abiding citizens, because they are trying to get businesses going.
	The trouble is that there is no discretion with a camera. It does not take into account prevailing conditions or whether the speed was really inappropriate. I was speaking to a cab driver yesterday. He said—and it was the only time in 30 years of driving—that the other day he went through a speed camera near Walthamstow. He was driving between some reservoirs, on a clear road, with no pedestrians or cyclists around and clear footpaths either side, and he was caught at 40 in a 30 mph limit. Where is the humanity and discretion in that? If a policeman had stopped him, he would probably have said, "Look, just don't do that again—you ought to slow down here". He has only to do that three times more and he has lost his livelihood; he could lose his house and his family. There can be quite serious consequences from losing licences, and it is possible to lose one's licence in one journey now, because there is no warning about the first time when one has been caught. That is totally unfair, and it is not the right way to do things.
	On the drinks side, I believe that lowering the limit below a realistic level will cause disrespect. A lot of research has been done into reaction times and limits, and a lot of it has shown that 80 milligrams is a perfectly sensible limit. We should be careful before we change that. We need to work out where our priorities really lie, rather than taking the easy route out.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this interesting debate. There has been a little overlapping, but not all that much, and when there has been the particular subject has been approached from different angles, which makes it even more interesting.
	It is appropriate that I should advise or remind noble Lords that I regularly go on traffic patrol with a number of police forces, that I passed my most recent police driving course last year and that my next course is to take place next year. It is also relevant that I advise your Lordships that I have attended road deaths and casualties, been to the mortuary for identification purposes and assisted in investigating crashes.
	Your Lordships will remember Jill Dando and the circumstances of her death. She was killed by a gunman as she approached her front door. Following this, the road in which she lived was closed for three weeks, thereby enabling the murder squad to examine the scene of the murder. Had she been run down intentionally by a motorist—in other words, murdered—the road would have been closed for a short while. It might have been closed for three hours for the accident investigators to do their job of determining what had happened. If she had been killed by a motorist, there would have been heaven knows how many complaints about the road being closed for three days, let alone three weeks.
	The Road Death Investigation Manual, under which all fatal collisions are investigated, recognises the right of an individual who has been killed on the road to have the circumstances thoroughly investigated in the same way as a murder. Therefore, scenes of crashes are to be treated as crime scenes, with the inevitable need for whole or partial road closures. In some instances, total road closure can lead to strangulation of the local, and in some cases wider, economy. I would be surprised if an economic assessment of the implications of the adoption of the Road Death Investigation Manual had taken place.
	It must be remembered that the police are duty bound by the manual and by Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to undertake such investigations. It is with some consternation that I have been led to believe that some forces are taking short cuts in how they use the manual and are not training their officers effectively. Therefore, it is possible, but I hope unlikely, that the murder weapon of choice—a motor vehicle—might not be detected as having been used intentionally. I understand, also, that senior investigation officer training will be stopped shortly because the National Centre for Policing Excellence is stopping training them in the short term. Due to retirements and promotions, that will effectively mean that the already overworked investigators will have additional pressures thrust upon them.
	It is well documented that the number of traffic officers has fallen by about 50 per cent in the 10 years from 1990. In that time, findings of guilt for dangerous, careless or drunken driving have decreased by about 38 per cent, and those for neglect to comply with traffic signs, direction and pedestrian rights have fallen by 70 per cent—to mention but two. Yet speed limit offences have increased by 90 per cent.
	So, where does that leave us? Safety cameras are useful, but limited. They catch those exceeding the speed limit and have been shown to reduce crashes within their vicinity—nothing more. But is that correct? Look at a camera positioned on a single carriageway and set at the speed limit of 60 miles an hour. It will not film the HGV that is not travelling at its correct speed of 40 miles an hour, will it? That, of course, means that it is impossible to audit each camera site in line with government policy when the speed limit for certain types of vehicle is less than the posted speed. Therefore, I wonder whether research is being conducted to make safety cameras more intelligent so that they can distinguish between types of vehicles and react accordingly.
	It should, of course, be noted that mobile cameras can be set to film specific types of vehicle, but are we tending to rely on technology at the expense of human interaction? After all, the safety camera does not know if the vehicle it has just photographed has been stolen and is being driven by someone who has never taken a driving test and who is uninsured. It has been reported in the press that government Ministers are being pressed by the anti-camera groups to remove cameras. If that happened, I hope that the Minister concerned would take into account that that would be interpreted by many as condoning those motorists who are committing a criminal offence: exceeding the speed limit.
	The traffic officer can stop any vehicle and deal with the errant motorist for all manner of things. That officer can also act with discretion in appropriate circumstances, as has been mentioned tonight. ANPR sites and those mounted in police vehicles are proving very worthwhile. I should like to add to this matter that digital cameras are a step forward from the films in those designed by Maurice Gatsonides. One more advance is STEPs where the average speed over a distance is monitored. Some years ago I mentioned that the camera which does not catch anyone is the most efficient—it has reduced the average speed, has monitored speed and has, at the same time, reduced death and injury.
	Many people seem to voice their concerns about the amount of money generated by safety cameras. I assume that comes not only from those who are caught. How about the novel suggestion that the excess money generated by safety camera fines which goes to the Treasury be directed at providing more traffic officers and nothing else? It must be recognised that traffic officers do not just deal with errant motorists but have an enviable arrest record for non- traffic offences. After all, the burglar does not go to and from the scene of his crime on top of a number 12 bus or by taxi or train. No, that burglar will probably go by car.
	Returning to drivers driving without insurance, did noble Lords know that the Government are underwriting those drivers? Why should a youngster bother to insure his or her vehicle when it would cost some thousands of pounds to do so when that driver knows that a police officer, in certain circumstances, can give them a fixed penalty for £200 and that magistrates' courts will fine them only an average of between £75 and £250? I have forgotten which Middle Eastern country ensures that all vehicles are insured to at least a minimum level simply by adding a small monetary amount to each litre of fuel. What a simple way of dealing with this problem. If the car has fuel in it, it is insured, and the more miles that are covered, the more the motorist pays for insurance. It makes sense. However, I can hear the cries of dismay from the insurance industry should such a measure be introduced.
	As I have said, there are insufficient traffic officers on the roads to stop the potential fatal crash. Let us remember that research states that enforcement has to be, first, certain—an offender knows that there is a good chance of being caught—secondly, immediate—an offence is dealt with immediately rather than by receiving a notice of intended prosecution in the post a couple of weeks after the offence was committed—and, thirdly, severe—the punishment must fit the crime. Thinking about the third item, it is all very well fining drivers for offences committed, but one of the first things a driver may ask when stopped is, "Will I get points on my licence?". So, why not make the offence of not wearing a seat belt endorsable when injuries are caused by not wearing them, even if passengers fail to wear them? This works very well in Australia; why could we not do the same here? To introduce an emotive point, there should be no exemptions. If everyone had to wear seat belts, there would be no possible excuse for not being aware of this requirement. It takes only a couple of seconds to put on a seat belt, but it might take only a fraction of a second to be killed or seriously injured by not wearing one.
	I was talking to a traffic officer only last week who said that when he stops someone for not wearing a seat belt he suggests that the driver runs as fast as possible into a brick wall if there is one close by. Of course, the driver says that he or she will not do so. The traffic officer then points out that if that person crashed while driving at 30 miles an hour, his forward momentum would be equivalent to 60 times his body weight. It has been estimated that if the back seat wearing rate could equal the front seat rate, 30 more adults would be saved every year.
	Let me introduce another novel thought. The KSI figures are reeled out regularly, but should there not be sufficient traffic officers on patrol who can concentrate on crashes and not on casualties? It must make sense that stopping a single crash could save many casualties when more than one vehicle is involved. And at what cost? The true social and economic impact must be from minor injuries sustained in minor crashes. Those may well not be serious enough for the injured person to seek attention and therefore become part of the statistics, but that person may be off work for a couple of days. Just think of the loss to the economy. The number of motorcycle injuries and deaths is increasing. Why? Is that due to lack of policing? I do not know.
	In addition, and returning to the subject of injuries on the roads, more officers would inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of injured people and a reduction in crime. Therefore, if fewer people were injured, the health service would benefit, as would government departments. Why do they not talk to each other in this respect? Joined-up government must be joined up. The potential financial savings resulting from fewer road deaths and casualties are well worth investigating by various departments.
	This afternoon, the Select Committee heard evidence from many people, including senior police officers. I have listened to many officers with excellent ideas, but those ideas are either not getting to ACPO or ACPO is choosing to ignore them. I am sure that my noble friend will acknowledge that senior police officers, who may have no first-hand knowledge of traffic enforcement, do not have the monopoly on good ideas. Those junior officers are frustrated and tired of seeing their best efforts and ideas ignored by the very people who are paying them to do the job. So why has the Select Committee not invited officers other than those in ACPO or of superintendent rank to give evidence? Aristotle once said:
	"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit".
	And that goes for the officers at the sharp end, day in, day out. I personally know a number of highly qualified, professional and knowledgeable officers who could give a true picture to government of what policing the roads is really about.
	The police are very overworked. With the under-reporting by police of crashes, trends are difficult to see and the statistics, of course, are dated. Electronic systems which use hand-held devices to collect causation factors update the systems daily, thereby giving the police and others an early indication of collision trends. The Dutch VIA system has a proven track record, and I hope that that will be investigated by the Department for Transport as a matter of urgency.
	My final thought today is that there are marine, aircraft and railway investigating bodies. Why could there not be a similar body for the roads to establish the patterns and see where they might lead? Suggestions could then be taken back to government on how improvements could be made to reduce the KSI figures even further.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for introducing this important debate. It is important to remember that road traffic accidents are the principal cause of unnatural deaths, particularly among the young, as noted by the noble Baroness. It is extremely distressing. I suspect that few noble Lords have not been touched by a road traffic accident. Several of my personal friends have been taken in that way. Worse still, my own cousin and her boyfriend were killed instantly in a road traffic accident.
	The noble Baroness asked why we accept higher risks on the roads than we do on the rails and in the air. I agree with her analysis, but I also believe that motorists are happier to take risks which they think they can control. The noble Baroness mentioned lower seat-belt wearing rates. It is a complete mystery to me why that should be the case.
	I agree with practically everything that has been said today by noble Lords, and I believe that our differences are those of emphasis. As many noble Lords observed, we in the UK have a good record of improvement in casualty rates. However, the figure of 33,000 killed or seriously injured indicates that there is room for improvement.
	I have one interest to declare. I am a qualified Army driving instructor. I am a little out of date but I could requalify if that became necessary for me under Mr Blair's plans.
	There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that the statistics are now proving to be very stubborn, especially for the killed and seriously injured. We have seen little overall improvement in recent years. Perhaps the use of mobile phones has increased the accident rate. If so, we look forward to seeing a reduction with the new legislation.
	Another possible reason for an increase in the accident rate is that a significant proportion of the remaining accidents are caused by rogue drivers who operate without any regard to the law. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, talked about the need for severe sanctions to deter driving offences. But, of course, the problem is that rogue drivers simply do not care. It may be very difficult to encourage them to address their responsibilities. However, we must do so if we are to make progress in reducing the accident rate. The Minister may draw comfort from the fall in the number of accidents per vehicle-kilometre covered, but that has always been the case.
	There is some good news. There have been significant falls in the numbers of pedestrian and cycle casualties. That is all the more welcome because, often, innocent victims are involved, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, I listened with care to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. I found his comments very interesting and I shall study them carefully tomorrow. However, I wish I could understand why the child casualty rate is relatively poor compared with that of our continental friends.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned The Times report about threats to Mary Williams of the pressure group Brake. We on these Benches deplore and condemn any such attack, irrespective of the views of the organisation concerned. The noble Lord underestimates Brake's contribution to road safety. Brake seems to me to be different from other groups in that it recognises the need for road transport, but wants to see it undertaken safely and properly. That may account for Brake being so well supported by the transport industry. Unfortunately, since I joined the Conservative Party it has practically ignored me. Even when I was Opposition spokesman for transport and even when I introduced the Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill it ignored me. However, recently Brake has written to me, but it now seems to think that I am the son of a duke.
	The previous Government trimmed their bypass and road building programme, but this Government have cut it further still. Many of those schemes were designed to save lives. Now fewer schemes are being completed and we are also seeing smaller reductions in accidents. I cannot say whether the two are connected as I have no firm evidence. We all know that motorways are very safe in absolute terms and that accidents per kilometre are fewer on motorways. Fewer than 1,500 people were killed or seriously injured in 2002. Most noble Lords recognise that.
	Many noble Lords covered the evil of drink and driving. The problem is with those who are way over the limit, but of course any alcohol will have an effect. Bad driving may be just as significant. Alternatively, a significant improvement in driving skills will have an even more beneficial effect than a zero or lower alcohol rate. I believe that drink-driving is yet another symptom of rogue drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others suggested lowering the blood alcohol level to the continental levels. It is important to remember that on the Continent there are graduated penalties. They start at a low blood-alcohol level with, initially, a slap on the wrist. The UK policy is to give a strong message, "Do not drink or drive". If one does, one faces severe penalties and adverse social consequences.
	My noble friend Lord Caithness talked about drowsy or tired drivers. He suggested that the problem may be as great as alcohol. He also talked about some of the technologies being developed to detect drowsiness. That may be a matter for the EU. Nearly all noble Lords talked about speeding and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, concentrated on that. I recall that last time we debated road safety I had a pop at the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. This time I shall resist the temptation.

Noble Lords: Why?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, because last time I was very cruel to him and he is not a bad old boy.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I am quite used to it.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am very lucky. I was very well trained by the Army at government expense. I know full well that speeding and hard driving will have little effect on my journey time, but both drastically increase the chance of an accident and a serious one at that. I agree with the conclusions of the TRL report about speeding and accidents. Speeding is symptomatic of poor driving skills that need to be improved. I shall say more on that later.
	Closely linked to speeding is the sin of driving so fast that the driver cannot stop within the distance that he can see to be clear. However, this is not so easy to detect or to prosecute. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, talked about adaptive speed control. What is the Minister's view on that? All modern cars have sophisticated engine management systems, so technically it would not be too difficult to achieve. It would enable high-risk areas, such as around schools, to be protected automatically from speeding drivers.
	Many noble Lords have talked about cameras. I do not have a problem with them. As I have already explained, I do not speed. Many motorists hate cameras. They need convincing of their merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, touched on that aspect. There is a weakness in the system, a matter about which the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, spoke. There is no opportunity to have a chat with a traffic policeman about motoring matters. That makes it impossible to detect other motoring offences more serious than speeding, especially drinking and driving. Many noble Lords touched on that.
	The noble Viscount mentioned ANPR. I believe that it has a vital role to play. It allows the police to be alerted to the presence of an illegal driver while leaving lawful motorists alone. Currently it works on vehicles with no vehicle excise duty, as per DVLA data, not what is shown on the windscreen, which of course could be completely fraudulent. My understanding is that unfortunately the MoT system is not yet linked to the DVLA.
	My noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Viscount touched on insurance problems. Some noble Lords have recently suggested an insurance disc similar to the tax disc. The difficulty for the DVLA is that often the driver is insured or the whole fleet is covered. Does the Minister have any plans to change insurance requirements so that an insurance company notifies the DVLA that either a particular vehicle—a VRN—is insured, or any vehicle kept by a certain person, ie a fleet, is insured. That would of course make it much easier for the authorities to detect an uninsured vehicle.
	I raised this next point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, several years ago. Can the Minister say when the ANPR system will flag up that there is no valid MoT for a vehicle? I understand that the police get so many hits by the ANPR system that they cannot actually stop all the vehicles detected, so they have to prioritise. Hopefully, when they are fully successful they will be able to move to zero tolerance.
	My final ANPR point is this. The police issue tickets and fines which are not paid. Does the Minister have any plans to introduce impounding when a vehicle has either no MoT, no tax or no insurance? If he does, he could do much to curb rogue drivers.
	There is no such thing as a perfect driver. There are novices, experienced drivers and experts. We should all aspire to become expert as there would be less chance of an accident, and if there is one it should be less serious. I believe that all the evils we have talked about this evening derive from poor driving skills. I am told that fleet driver training schemes can reduce the accident rate of a fleet by 20 per cent. It is important to remember that the driving standards of all drivers can be improved. None of us is perfect.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, talked about work-related traffic accidents. She covered the need for training of drivers in a work environment. Not only will that reduce the accident rate, but it would also reduce the cost of operation of that fleet and therefore be self-financing.
	We religiously test our vehicles every year. Few accidents are caused by vehicle faults. But it would be political suicide to suggest compulsory retraining for every driver, even every five years, let alone every year. I am pleased to hear that the noble Viscount's driving continues to be reassessed every year.
	We already have a driver improvement scheme whereby an errant motorist can avoid points by agreeing to retraining. My personal belief is that we need to introduce compulsory retraining for drivers who commit moving traffic offences. I think that that should be in addition to any penalty points or fines. So: "This is your penalty and this is what we are going to do to stop you having further accidents".
	If the errant motorist cannot show that he has been retrained, say within six months, his licence should be revoked. Of course the system would need more trainers, but their cost would be small compared to the benefits. There may be different tests for young and novice drivers compared to an experienced driver. In conclusion, I do not think that it would be wise to wait until a poor driver kills or seriously injures an innocent party in an avoidable accident. We should do something about the situation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing a debate that has proved fruitful, containing constructive ideas on road safety issues, which, I assure the House, the Government will take seriously. We will consider several extremely interesting perspectives. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on the force and passion with which she introduced the debate on issues about which she clearly cares a great deal. Her contribution set the tone for the whole debate, in which a range of contributions have reflected the fact that we need to take road safety seriously.
	There are areas in which we can draw some solace from the figures, but we must not be complacent. We must recognise that our country has an outstanding road safety record. It is one of the best in the world and is widely envied, but there are areas in which we could do a great deal better. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for emphasising children's issues—a point to which I shall return later. Our statistics for children's injuries and fatalities are disappointingly high. We must examine the reasons for that and recognise that we need proper measures to protect our children as best we can.
	Noble Lords have used a wide variety of statistics, all of which I agree with from their different perspectives, for injuries and deaths. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, referred to international figures. I am pleased to tell him that on 7th April next year, World Health Day will make road safety its subject, so we will be able to gain a more international perspective from that. I hope that we will learn from other countries that do better than us; but I have no doubt that they will pay tribute to the effectiveness of much of our work on road safety.
	On the more general issue of statistics, I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, had to say. I did not recognise some of the figures that he mentioned. On speed, I would say only that of course some people can drive well at high speeds, but we all know that excessive or inappropriate speed is a contributory factor to about one-third of all accidents. That is why we recognise that careful adherence to speed limits is an important road safety provision, and why we place great store on methods to control speed.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, excess speed is exceeding the speed limit; inappropriate speed is driving dangerously fast for the road conditions or the type of road. I maintain that excess speed on a motorway may not be dangerous. In fact, because many people exceed the speed limit, it may be safer if everyone is travelling at the same or similar speed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. There are experiments in this country for regulated speeds on motorways below the existing maximum level, because we recognise that regulated speed can reduce traffic accidents. One thing that we may admire about the United States is that on its freeways it operates a road regulation system, which in many cases imposes a much lower maximum speed limit than ours, with considerable safety. I merely reflect that when accidents occur, people have been going too fast: that is an important contributory factor in one-third of accidents. That cannot be denied.
	However, to put things in perspective, we should recognise that the number of vehicles on British roads has trebled since 1960 from 9.4 million to 30.6 million and that total mileage has nearly quadrupled. Despite those increases, fewer people are now injured on the roads than in 1960 and the number killed has been halved. Those are figures in which we can rightly take pride, while at the same time recognising that we need to do more, particularly in certain areas.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John, referred to motorcycle accidents. Motorcycle casualties are disproportionately high, with riders being around 30 times more likely to be killed than car users. Motorcycling deaths rose by 4 per cent last year, continuing a trend that began in the mid-1990s. The volume of motorcycling is growing much faster than car usage. That means that the actual death rate of those using motorcycles is going down, but, again, that is not a matter for complacency.
	Regarding bus lanes, I am not sure that I am pushing at an open door. We are looking at those questions and shall examine the issue closely. But I had the misfortune to introduce the first Greater London Bill to bring bus lanes to London way back in 1975. At that time we intended to keep black taxi cabs out of bus lanes. The reaction was ferocious and we conceded overnight. I am not too sure that we want to allow any other vehicles to drive in bus lanes apart from taxi cabs. However, I heard the comments of the noble Lord on their potential contribution to the safety of motorcycling. As has been raised in the debate, we are delighted that motorcyclists have accepted a culture of compulsory helmet wearing. That is an important factor in protecting motorcyclists when accidents occur.
	We are concerned about drink-drive accidents, which have increased in the last few years. The breathalyser is a striking example of how to change attitudes. There is no doubt that 35 years ago, as several noble Lords have indicated, it was thought that motorists had the right to drink almost any amount of alcohol and then drive safely. Thankfully, those days are long gone. The majority of us recognise that alcohol and driving do not go together. The vast majority of us have also accepted the culture of wearing seat belts, although again I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John, that rear seat belts are not used as effectively as they ought to be. That leads to accidents for children, who are often back seat passengers. He was right to call attention to that.
	Of course the Government are committed to continued efforts on road safety. A sign of that is that the road safety strategy launched in March 2000 was introduced by the Prime Minister himself. That document Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone set challenging but achievable targets for reducing casualties by 2010. The target for death and serious injuries is a 40 per cent reduction compared with the average for 1994 to 1998. The number in 2002 has already fallen by 17 per cent, perhaps more through the benefits of existing, rather than new, policies, although noble Lords have recognised the benefit of some new policies, not least over mobile phones—to which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred. He mentioned me in passing. I emphasise that it is far too early for us to begin to judge the effect of that legislation, but we recognise that there have been serious accidents associated with the use of mobile phones by drivers.
	When the strategy was launched, three-yearly reviews over delivering and achieving the targets were promised. The first of those reviews is being carried out now and will report in spring 2004. Last week the Government also had the benefit of fresh advice on a number of key issues from the independent Commission for Integrated Transport, to which reference has been made, not least by one of its members, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Its views will be carefully considered in the Government's review.
	Road safety is a big subject with many factors and influences. Sometimes the issues have been divided into what is known in the trade as the four E's. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned three. They are enforcement, engineering, education; we also add evaluation, which is important in looking at the effectiveness of policies. In picking up the main points raised in the debate, I shall try to group the issues under the main themes that have been explored: safer drivers; safer roads; and safer cars.
	My noble friend Lady Gibson quoted the recent lecture by Professor Begg, from which we all derived insights and useful knowledge. He commented on the importance that should be attached to the drink-driving problem. In some respects, Britain is out of step with other countries. We are rightly concerned that 560 deaths—the department's original estimate of the number of road deaths in 2002 in accidents where at least one driver or rider was over the limit—was 6 per cent higher than the figure in the two previous years and 20 per cent higher than the figure for the two years before that. That is indeed a worrying trend and one that we do not want to continue.
	At the same time, it is good to know that even at this higher level the number of drink-drive deaths is still half what it was in 1984 and only one-third of what it was in 1979. That should be two decades of effective action and publicity, and we need to examine the area again.
	It is clear from the public opinion surveys which the Government carry out in association with their road safety publicity campaigns that most people accept that it is socially unacceptable to drink and drive. But when it comes to the level of the drink-drive limit, which in this country is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, we have also to consider other factors, including the severity of the associated powers. And here I am at one with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his analysis of the position.
	While it is true that other European countries have reduced their limit to 50 milligrams—in Sweden it is down to 20 milligrams—they have graduated penalties. The issue, in all fairness, is to argue that one could reduce the level but also the penalty. We have looked at that matter seriously because we take on board that our drink-driving position needs to be examined most carefully. The Government were minded to reduce the blood-alcohol limit to bring it to the European norm, but after a long and careful look at the issues, it was decided that the limit should remain unchanged. Taken together with our much more stringent penalties, we believe that the current level acts as an effective deterrent and that to lower the limit and the penalties would make little or no difference, or might make the situation even worse.
	It is important that we get across to our people the seriousness of drinking and driving. That is why we feel justified in having our present stringent penalties. Cutting the limit would not necessarily reduce road deaths. It is important to recognise that the method of enforcement is vital because that impacts on the mind of the motorists. A recent paper from the European Commission suggested that enforcement and other factors were more important in reducing deaths than lowering the limit. It also pointed out that Britain's road death rate by population is six per 100,000, but in Portugal and Greece where the 50 milligram limit obtains the death rate is three times higher.
	We have also seen the results of research carried out in Canada, which was thinking of reducing the limit. It looked at the issues and decided that there was no conclusive case for a 50 milligram limit because of the many other factors that come into play. I assure the House that in view of the figures, the Government are looking at this issue with a great deal of seriousness.
	Furthermore, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was right in saying that tiredness is an important factor in road deaths. We are aware of the Loughborough report partly because the Government funded a great deal of it and the Government tend to know where their money has gone. He will have seen notices on motorways and so forth which emphasise to drivers at fairly regular intervals that tiredness can kill. It is an important point, and I assure him that we are considering seriously that research.
	I have emphasised that it is now illegal to use hand-held mobile phones while driving. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner that it is a distraction and danger to take a telephone call, not just to take one's hands off the steering wheel. The reason why the use of hand-held mobile phones has been tackled first is that it is the activity most readily detectable by police. They are concerned that they should be able to enforce the law, and there is a problem with enforcing a ban on using hands-free mobile phones while driving.
	My noble friend Lady Gibson asked why we did not get at employers. We have done so: the Health and Safety Executive and the Government have written to the top 100 employers to say that they should not encourage their drivers to take calls while driving. I shall give noble Lords a word of encouragement: the Law Society has removed from its cars all mobile phones, including hands-free sets, because it regards them as a potential hazard to drivers. That is one clear illustration that the message is getting home. I hope that it will encourage others.
	One could have predicted that safety cameras would feature significantly in the debate. Several noble Lords paid due regard to the issue. Contrary to the impression given by much of the popular press, the partnerships are allowed to install cameras only where there is a history of speed-related accidents and casualties. Most importantly, the partnerships recover from the Treasury only the cost of operating cameras and installing new ones, from the income generated by fines. The idea that the measure is an insidious new form of stealth tax on the nation is false. Cameras are a clear warning to drivers that speed limits must be obeyed, a point that my noble friend Lord Simon emphasised. The noble Viscount is right that police officers often see speeding vehicles as potentially engaged in other criminal pursuits. That is why the police are concerned about excessive speed, which is often associated with other crime.
	In due course, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, speed cameras will potentially lead to the detection of other traffic crimes, such as driving without insurance and driving without an MoT certificate. We are examining ways to enforce other traffic laws properly through sophisticated cameras. The DVLA is interested, for obvious reasons, in that possibility.

Earl Attlee: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am a little pressed for time, so I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me. If I give way, I may not be able to answer the whole debate.
	The other aspect of using seatbelts is to seek to reduce speed where children are most vulnerable. That is why traffic-calming measures are needed in urban areas and home zones. We seek to emphasise that our child safety problem is not that British drivers are poorer than those on the Continent, but we have problems separating traffic from pedestrians. The vulnerable pedestrians are often children. That is why we must have very low speed limits wherever children are present—near schools and in residential areas.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to speed in rural areas, which is another area of special concern being given much thought. A new speed hierarchy for rural areas is being considered that takes account of the nature and quality of particular roads as well as the nature of the traffic that uses them. Any new proposals that are developed would need to be piloted before wider introduction, as well as given wide publicity to ensure that all drivers fully understood the changes. However, I wanted to reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking at the matter.
	The last point that I want to emphasise is safer cars, to which several noble Lords referred. Vehicle safety is important not just for car passengers. We all salute the achievements of the motor industry in making cars safer for passengers, but it is also important that car design takes account of the risks to other road users, especially pedestrians. I am therefore pleased that, following earlier negotiations with car manufacturers, an EU directive has now been ratified which sets the pedestrian protection requirements that have to be met for all new car models introduced from October 2005 onwards. Several noble Lords referred to that point and we are seeing improvements.
	This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. I could not hope to cover every single issue that has been raised. I am only too pleased to write to noble Lords if it has been detected that I have been inadequate in my reply. I am grateful to every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate and for their interest and concern. This is a very important issue. We heard testimony about the price that is paid when road accidents occur to immediate family, carers and wider society. We all recognise that there is almost no greater risk than when one entrusts oneself to the road. That is why it is an obligation on any responsible government to make road safety a major priority.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, it is late and the fisheries debate is waiting in the wings, so I shall do little more than thank noble Lords who have participated in a debate that has been wide-ranging. It has come from a variety of perspectives and will, I am sure, prove very useful to the Government and officials. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who shared often painful and personal perspectives with the House.
	I would also like to say how much I enjoyed the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I agreed with very few of his statistics and none of his conclusions. Nevertheless, he serves to remind us that we should treat statistics, their sources and the conclusions that we draw from them with some caution because, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing—safer roads. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro–Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Lebanon) Order 2003

Baroness Crawley: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the importance to the UK and the EU of stability in the Middle East has rarely been more apparent or acute. Today, we have an opportunity to take an important step in promoting that stability. The association agreements between the EU and Lebanon and the EU and Algeria aim to promote economic and social development in Lebanon and Algeria. They create a partnership underpinned by an ongoing, wide-ranging dialogue and cemented through increased trade liberalisation. They envisage co-operation on a spectrum of issues of mutual concern, ranging from tourism to terrorism, from immigration to investment.
	The agreements support UK interests in a variety of ways. They will continue to encourage economic and political reform in Algeria and Lebanon, providing a key plank in the UK's policy to promote reform across the Arab world. They create opportunities for increased UK exports through the progressive reduction of Lebanese and Algerian tariffs on EU industrial products and through increased agricultural liberalisation. That dovetails with our wider aim of promoting global trade liberalisation and economic integration. Equally importantly, the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and human rights.
	The two agreements form part of a broader relationship between the EU and the countries of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, known as the Euro-Med partnership. This chapter in EU-Mediterranean relations was opened at Barcelona in 1995 and continues to grow and develop. Its over-arching goal is to ensure peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean region. To that end, it aims to create a Euro-Med free trade area by 2010. Combining an enlarged EU of 25 with our Mediterranean partners will create one of the world's largest trading blocs.
	Association agreements are the main instrument for achieving that target. Agreements similar to the one before the House today have already been signed with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt. All except Egypt are in force. An interim agreement with the Palestinian Authority has been agreed and is in force. An agreement with Syria is being negotiated.
	Lebanon and Algeria share the UK and EU aims of promoting regional stability and prosperity through dialogue, co-operation and trade. The EU-Algeria association agreement was signed on 27th April 2002; and the EU-Lebanon association agreement was signed on 17th June 2002. An interim agreement with Lebanon covering trade is in force, but, until the agreements have been ratified by all parties, Algeria and Lebanon will not enjoy all the benefits.
	These are important agreements, supporting key long-term UK and EU objectives. I recommend their ratification.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing and explaining the orders. As she said, they are important agreements.
	We broadly welcome the agreement with Algeria. We are strongly in favour of trade liberalisation. Regrettably, Algeria has suffered greatly in the past few years, and we believe that freer trade will help to provide it with the prosperity that its population urgently deserves and needs. Similarly, co-operation on matters of illegal immigration and counter-terrorism will undoubtedly be of great value to all signatories and we welcome that.
	Noble Lords who have read the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights this year will know that at least 100,000 civilians have died in the decade of insurgency by Islamic armed groups in Algeria. Despite an amnesty, two armed groups are still active. The conflict continues to claim around 100 lives a month. As well as terrorist violence, there are numerous allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces and state-armed militias, including enforced disappearances—involving an estimated 4,000 people—and torture. Amnesty International, in the FCO report, argues that, although the rate of human rights abuses has fallen in the past few years, it remains high. Notably, UN monitors have not received the assistance that they might have expected.
	We understand that the Algerian Government were faced with what was, in effect, a civil war. That presented them with difficult problems. Are Her Majesty's Government confident that the framework for political dialogue will address those pressing problems? How regular will the political dialogue be? How soon will it start after the order comes into force? What monitoring mechanisms are in place? We would like to be reassured that this order will be used to address those concerns on human rights. By improving human rights, the problems of illegal immigration and terrorism will also be improved.
	The case of the Lebanon order is similar. We welcome the agreement, particularly supporting the provisions on trade liberalisation, co-operation on illegal immigration and the proposed political dialogue. However, I note with concern that there is no provision for co-operation on anti-terrorism. Could the noble Baroness comment on that? What effort has been made to create such a provision? If any effort was made, why was it without success? The Minister in the other place said that,
	"if the situation becomes so bad",
	the provision of the agreement to both countries will be suspended if necessary. Could the noble Baroness explain exactly what criteria the Government will use to decide if it is "too bad"?
	We have serious concerns about human rights in Lebanon, including political arrests and violence against women. Does the noble Baroness consider that the framework addressing those issues is satisfactory? Similarly, we have concerns regarding terrorism, especially in the light of frequent exchanges of fire on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I would welcome any enlightenment that the noble Baroness can give the House on that.
	The Lebanon is a society riven by war and suffering over the past few years, but it was once a hugely successful country. I hope that both agreements will help both countries to move forward and to rebuild what they have lost. We support the orders and hope that our concerns will be addressed.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we, too, support these orders. But, as on the previous occasion—12th May—when we discussed EU association agreements, I wish to speak only about the standard human rights clause, which is to be found in all these agreements following the Commission's 1995 communication, On the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights and Agreements between the Community and Third Countries.
	On that occasion in May, we spoke about Chile and Egypt. In both those countries, one could say that human rights is improving. It is rather doubtful whether the same could be said of Algeria. In July 2002, I had the honour of presenting a petition to the Algerian Government, at their embassy in London on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Algerian independence, calling for an inquiry into the 4,000 plus "disappearances" since the state of emergency was introduced 11 years ago.
	President Bouteflika announced what is described as an "ad hoc mechanism" for looking into the disappearances, but it appears to fall short of the demand that has been made for a general inquiry with the necessary resources to back it. As the noble Lord said, the UN Working Group on Disappearances originally asked to visit the country in August 2000, but is still waiting for a response to that request.
	In a letter to me dated 28th June 2002, the Minister, Mike O'Brien, said that during a visit to Algiers, the EU Troika had pressed the Algerian authorities for a response to the list of the "disappeared", which had been sent by the presidency in April 2001 and raised again at the political dialogue between Algeria and the EU in December 2001. He continued:
	"Now that the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria has been signed, the EU Commission will be in a position to closely monitor adherence to the human rights principles laid out in the text of the Association Agreement".
	With that in mind, could the Minister tell us whether a response has yet been received to that list which was presented two-and-a-half years ago?
	The noble Lord has reminded us that since the emergency began 11 years ago an estimated 100,000 people have been killed. Although there has been some improvement, still some 60 people are dying every month as a result of violence by the armed groups, the security forces and the state-armed militias. Yet the requests which have been made repeatedly by the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial Executions—going back, I think, in one case, to 1994—have been ignored. This despite assurances given by Prime Minister Benflis to a delegation of Members of your Lordships' House who visited Algeria in September 2002 that UN rapporteurs would be welcome.
	On 18th March 2002, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told me in a Written Answer that:
	"We continue to urge the Algerian Government to comply fully with its obligations under international law on the investigation of human rights abuses, including requests to visit by UN Special Rapporteurs".—[Official Report, 18/3/03; cols. WA 115–16.]
	I have suggested from time to time that it would be useful if, before every session of the UN Human Rights Commission, a list could be published of the outstanding requests by the UN Special Procedures giving the date on which each request was first made and on which it was renewed. I have also suggested that thematic rapporteurs should make a point of submitting written reports if the countries concerned fail to issue invitations, so that at least their omission would attract some penalty in terms of naming and shaming.
	On the facts, the influence of Europe has not been very effective and it would be useful to know whether the Minister thinks that the association agreement will make any difference. I wonder why the Algerians should pay any more attention to their obligations under the standard human rights clause in the agreement when for years they have ignored the pleas of the United Kingdom, the European Union and the Human Rights Commission.
	Perhaps the Minister will say, as Bill Rammell, the Minister in another place, said in response to a question on 11th December, that an association council established under this agreement would be able to examine any major issues that arise, including human rights. But since the council has no teeth, it is not clear why the Government think that it is likely to produce the improvements that we have been demanding in vain in all other forums. The Algerians might even refuse to attend meetings of the association council, as have the Tunisians, in spite of the fact that their agreement has been in force for two years; and that without attracting any penalty.
	In the Commission's document of September 2000 entitled Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process, it recognised that there had not been a sufficiently frank and serious dialogue on human rights and that EU human rights policies in the Mediterranean region lacked consistency. It considered that co-operation on respect for human rights and democracy, good governance and the rule of law should be enhanced. Out of that I understand there have emerged proposals for what are call "Etats de Lieu" reports covering these issues and leading to action plans for each of the partner states. I am not sure whether these mechanisms are yet in force; in the communique on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers held in Naples at the beginning of this month, there was a reference under the heading "Human Rights and Democracy" to,
	"joint action plans . . . to implement the commitments which the partners have agreed to",
	but nothing specific about the Etats de Lieu reports, which must be an essential preparation for those plans. If, for instance, Algeria disclaims any responsibility for the human rights abuses which continue to take place within its jurisdiction, it would follow that an action plan would not have to include any "national regulation and legislation" to deal with those abuses.
	If, on the other hand, there is a serious commitment to a joint examination of alleged human rights abuses, then we very much welcome this as a significant advance. It means, presumably, that the Commission would send experts to Algeria to examine reports of human rights abuses with the Algerian authorities, and that for this purpose the joint teams would have to be given free access to places as well as the power to call for papers and summon witnesses. The very possibility of such inquiries might have an immediate and salutary effect on the perpetrators of human rights abuses.
	Neither Algeria nor Lebanon is included in a list of countries to which a special chapter is devoted in the FCO's annual human rights report, although Lebanon is mentioned as the host country of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Lebanon and the Arab World, to which the UK gave a small amount in the year under review. The bilateral assistance for human rights in Lebanon, and any EU funding through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights or through MEDA are independent of the association agreements, as I hope the Minister will confirm.
	Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both recently expressed concern about the harassment of human rights defenders in Lebanon, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, including Samira Trad and Muhammed Mugraby, both of whom suffered arbitrary detention. The government there, unlike Algeria, appointed a commission of inquiry into the thousands of disappearances that occurred during the civil war which ended in 1990, but the findings, which were submitted in February 2001, have never been published.
	The noble Lord also mentioned that violence against women is a problem in Lebanon. Amnesty International states that the amendments which are proposed to the penal code would make that situation worse. It states that freedom of expression, which is already constrained, would suffer additional limitations if the amendments go through its Parliament. The arrest of commercial television station owner Tahsin Khayat on 5th December on the orders of a military prosecutor is an ominous sign, and there were arrests is September, also by the military prosecutor, of two journalists associated with a gay website.
	The treatment of thousands of Palestinian refugees in refugee camps is also discriminatory and the European Parliament, in the resolution it passed accompanying its consent to this agreement in October, called on the Lebanese Government to ratify the refugee convention.
	Does the Minister honestly believe that any of these problems will be solved by the association agreement or even, in the case of amendments to the penal code that are unfriendly to human rights, will be saved from getting any worse? I cannot imagine why the Lebanese authorities would be susceptible to persuasion by high-level political dialogue when up until now they have been impervious to representations that were not adorned with an association agreement label.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, pointed out on the previous occasion that if a state fails to meet its obligations the EU can take what are called "appropriate measures", including the suspension of the agreement itself. But of course that nuclear option would never be used and the agreement does not provide for a graduated range of lesser penalties which might be appropriate if, after a period to be decided, there has not been any improvement in the records of these countries.
	Of course it is easier for the EU to have a standard clause which it inserts in every association agreement. That may give the bureaucrats a warm glow of satisfaction imagining that they have done something for human rights, but if experience shows that there is no added value in the clause and that any improvements which take place in the partner countries are the result of other procedures, we should review the whole process and see if Europe can design a mechanism for the future that would really work.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on the enormous enthusiasm with which she introduced these orders. One got the impression that they were perhaps the best possible agreements that had been negotiated in the past 10 years.
	However, one major serious criticism can be levelled at them. I shall try to explain it. Article 2 of these and all previous EU association agreements states:
	"Relations . . . shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
	These are said to be an essential element of the agreements. This is fine. But, alas, there is no mechanism to ensure compliance with Article 2 and so the words remain empty and rhetorical.
	Detailed mechanisms are needed providing, for example, for regular monitoring of what happens and for close liaison, as has been mentioned, with the UN special rapporteurs on individual countries and on specific kinds of breaches of human rights. If it can be done, this should lead to specific recommendations for improvement. We also need monitoring of whether human rights defenders are in practice free to act, and compliance on human rights should be a distinct agenda item for the regular meetings of the associations councils. Will the Government take up these points with the European Union?
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised very important points about reports and action plans. As I understand it, these are not provided for in the text of the agreements. In this process, will the Government study carefully the resolutions of the European Parliament concerning these two agreements? The first was Resolution P5 TA-Prov (2002), of 10th January 2003, I think, regarding Lebanon. The second resolution was B5-0489/2002 of 10th October 2002. Both resolutions call for mechanisms of implementation for human rights, and mention many of the points to which I have referred.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their important and interesting comments in this debate. I thank them for their constructive overall comments about these agreements. I have been asked several times by noble Lords whether I think these agreements can be effective in challenging issues of human rights abuse in particular. It is vital that the relationship between the European Union and Algeria and Lebanon is strengthened so that we can move down the path of strengthening our resolve to ensure that human rights abuses are reduced and eliminated. This will require serious commitment from the European Union and the UK.
	Several questions have been raised; I shall do my best to answer them all. If I miss any, I will happily ensure that they are answered in writing. I was asked by many noble Lords about human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me about Algeria in particular. I am sure he knows that the articles on political dialogue in the association agreements provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, including democracy, regional development and other issues. I can assure the noble Lord that the human rights issue will be very much a part of that dialogue, just as it is under the other association agreements to which I referred in my opening remarks.
	In addition, the European Union can take the appropriate measures to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, if thought fit, including suspending the provisions in the agreement with Algeria and Lebanon. This was referred to as a nuclear option. However, it is a very serious provision—it is in the agreement, and that suspension could take place if it was considered that Algeria and Lebanon were failing to meet their obligations under the agreement, such as those regarding respect for fundamental human rights. That is clearly stated in Article 2 of the association agreements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the EU-Lebanon association agreement as far as covering counter-terrorism is concerned. Co-operation on counter-terrorism is covered by a separate exchange of letters between the EU and Lebanon which enters into force at the same time as the agreement. The focus is on sharing information and experiences about countering and preventing terrorism and undertaking joint research on methods of prevention.
	In thanking the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, for their contributions, may I say that we envisage serious monitoring of the human rights situation in both agreements? Under Articles 92 to 95 of the agreements, an association council will be established which shall meet at ministerial level once a year and examine any major issue arising within the framework of the agreement. An association committee of senior officials will also meet during the year. Article 2 states that human rights shall constitute an essential element of the agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that was given in a reply recently in another place. Association agreements will make a difference.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister deal with the point that I made about the association agreement with Tunisia, whereby the association council did not meet because the Tunisians declined to come? Short of withdrawing from the agreement, what penalties are available to the Commission if some breach occurs that does not warrant a total withdrawal from the agreement? What lesser penalties are provided?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, surely we need some kind of halfway house between total suspension of the agreement and nothing being done. The Minister mentioned a committee, but will it have any teeth?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I shall endeavour to write to both noble Lords on the details, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the details of the Tunisia association agreement, and what happens as a result of the action that took place in Tunisia. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that these are face-to-face ministerial meetings; they are serious meetings with serious players, and a forum for frank discussion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about disappeared persons. The Algerian ministry of foreign affairs has responded to some of the cases raised, but only limited information has been forthcoming. In October 1998, at a meeting with the EU troika, the Algerian Foreign Minister undertook to examine individual human rights cases submitted by the EU. Following that, Amnesty International approached the Foreign Office and asked us to submit four cases of disappearance via the presidency. In October 1999, the UK submitted three more cases. A new presidency list was submitted at the ministerial troika in 2001, and the UK continues to raise the cases bilaterally and through the EU, including the points raised by Mike O'Brien during his visit this year.
	I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with information, if we have more of it, on the situation of violence against women. I shall also write to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, as he asked first about that particular aspect of human rights.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the Commission communication on democratisation, human rights and the national plan. The Commission released a communication on human rights and democratisation in May 2003, which sets out proposals to encourage the improvement and promotion of human rights in the Euro-Mediterranean countries. Proposals include the provision of technical assistance to third countries, making community funding to third countries conditional on their respect of human rights, as well as drawing up national action plans with benchmarks on human rights. We very much welcome the Commission's communication as an important step to enhance dialogue between the EU and third countries on human rights. Full details of the European Commission's communication can be found at www.europa.eu.int. I shall speak to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that, if he wishes to again.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, discussed torture. We shall undertake to encourage the investigation of all allegations of torture and shall call for action against anyone found to have committed such a crime or violated other international human rights standards.
	In closing, these are important and serious agreements which can improve human rights in the relevant third countries, supporting key long-term UK, EU, Algerian and Lebanese objectives. The UK and the EU must continue to promote closer ties within and between the different regions of the world. I am sure noble Lords would agree that no region is more important than the Middle East. These agreements provide the sort of wide-ranging, concrete measures needed to underpin a relationship that will foster stability, prosperity and understanding. I commend the orders to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro–Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria) Order 2003

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [31st Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	A very similar Bill to this one was introduced into another place last June by Austin Mitchell MP, supported by a cross-party group of Members. Unfortunately, it did not get a Second Reading and, of course, fell at the end of the previous Session. Austin Mitchell was kind enough to pass it on to me with suggestions for its simplification and improvement. I am greatly indebted to the Public Bill Office for redrafting the Bill.
	For 62 years of my life I lived within two miles of Fraserburgh, once one of the biggest and most prosperous fishing ports in the country—once, I believe, the biggest herring port in Europe—founded over 400 years ago by my ancestor. The prosperity of Fraserburgh is very dear to my heart and I have witnessed the decline of the fishing industry on which it depends with great sorrow.
	The common fisheries policy, after years of failure to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries, was due for substantial overhaul by December 2002. A promising package of proposals adopted by the Commission in May 2002 was wrecked by decisions taken by the Council in December 2002, as a result of pressure from certain interested member states. For many years now the cod and hake stocks have been falling to dangerously low levels, and the measures agreed by the Council to protect them have been too little and too late. There is little reason to suppose that the story will be any different this December. TACs (total allowable catches) are set too high; they are in any case a very inefficient method of controlling the quantity of fish caught leading both to the landing of "black fish" and the wicked practice of discarding; that is, throwing overboard to die fish caught over and above the permitted quota.
	The encouragement of effort limitation by grants for scrapping boats has been inadequate, and largely negated by "technology creep"; that is, the fitting of the remaining boats and the building of new boats with more efficient fish-catching equipment, particularly in France and Spain, and financed, believe it or not, by EU funding. Those are just two examples of common fisheries policy inefficiency.
	Now, in panic, there is talk of forbidding all fishing for white fish in the North Sea. Not only would that spell final ruin to our fishermen, but it ignores the fact that cod and hake, preferring colder waters, do not inhabit in any quantity the same fishing grounds in the North Sea as haddock and whiting and other white fish, of which the stocks are sufficient for moderate catches to be permissible and for which our fishermen are accustomed to fish.
	The plight of our fishing industry has long been serious and is likely to become more so. It is not helped by the regrettable fact that FIFG funding is available only for fishery purposes and not for financing alternative industries in our fishing ports and retraining fishermen who have been put out of work.
	Ultimately, we in this country have a far greater interest in the sound management of our fish stocks than do the other member states which fish our fishing grounds and which are anxious to continue fishing our waters because 70 per cent of the European Union fish stocks are in our waters. It is the living of our fishermen and that of their children and grandchildren which is at stake. At present, there are many very unhappy fishermen out there—and not only fishermen, for the ancillary businesses are affected, too. If the decision on who fished our waters was ours alone, our fishermen would fare much better. That is the reason for the Bill.
	I turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power, by affirmative order, to withdraw from the common fisheries policy on such a date as he shall determine, regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
	Clause 2 amends the Fishery Limits Act 1976 so that foreign fishing boats not registered in a country with a fisheries agreement with the United Kingdom would be forbidden to enter United Kingdom fishery limits. Fishermen from the European Union are specifically forbidden to fish within fishery limits unless their respective countries are designated access under the 1976 Act. No country would be so designated unless reciprocal rights to fish in its waters were granted to UK fishing boats and they observed the same conservation measures as those applied within British fishery limits, or more stringent ones.
	Provision is also made in Clause 2 for the following: a licensing regime for fishing boats within British fishery limits; penalties for unlicensed fishing; the landing in the UK, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands of fish caught within British waters, or their being reported to Ministers and available for inspection if landed elsewhere; the conduct of relations with the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland and Norway with regard to fisheries; the use of statutory instruments relating to the fisheries regime; and the taking into account of the devolution of powers.
	Clause 3 makes financial provision for any expenditure of the Secretary of State consequent upon the Act. Clause 4 concerns the citation, extent and commencement date. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom.
	This is an enabling Bill. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the common fisheries policy; it merely enables the Secretary of State to make an order to do so—an order which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. But I hope that it will send a very clear signal to the Council of Ministers that people in this country are becoming very fed up and, by so doing, will give the Minister responsible for negotiations with the Council a stronger hand to play. Our Ministers do their best. For many years, Ministers of all political complexions have worked their socks off trying to get our fisheries a better deal. Any help or ammunition that we can give them, we should give unstintingly. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, with considerable approval. I, too, have greatly benefited from knowing fishermen in Arbroath, Peterhead and up the coast, particularly in Wick, and from Ullapool northwards. They are good men and they are suffering. There is no question about that.
	There are many reasons, but the plain fact is that one boat equipped with all the modern devices and manned by trained people can catch as much as probably 10 boats could 50 years ago. That really is the reason for the run down in stocks, along with a good deal of incompetence in the EU over the fisheries policy and some incompetence on our part too, including the failure to have any form of control over landings in Spain. At one time, in Spain there were two inspectors for the whole country, which was obviously bad. I doubt whether in France and Spain they are as particular as we and some others are.
	We have also had decommissioning in this country, but the decommissioning figures were too low. Many of our fishermen sold their boats and their licences to foreign crews who manned them as British boats. In that way they continued the expansion of catching ability which we must now do something to control.
	We are in a different position compared with Norway and Iceland, who are always held up as great examples. Norway and Iceland have open seas all around them and for them 200 miles means something. However, in this country we have opposite us Denmark, Germany, Belgium and France, all with a share of the North Sea. There is no 200-mile limit. I do not see how the Bill will help. I am glad to hear the noble Lady say that it will merely help the Government to correct the common fisheries policy by having a threat to wield. If I thought that that was the purpose I would support it, but I am not sure whether it is. I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords think.
	The need to do something—that old phrase—is perfectly clear, especially when we look at Newfoundland cod, which was the source of a great industry. The fish have not returned; they have been fished out. There have to be changes. So the much despised CFP has done some good. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had no measures. There are bad aspects, such as the giving of grants to equip new boats and so on, which is obvious nonsense, and the paying of money to decommission a boat, but not taking away the licence. That is the kind of madness that has led to the difficulty in which we find ourselves now.
	However, we must give some credit to the common fisheries policy. I do not know what would have happened without it. If one looks at the difficulties of negotiating new agreements with all the countries, there is no doubt that we should concentrate our efforts harder on improving the common fisheries policy and making it practical. In spite of all its failings, it is the only machinery left which can improve the situation to the benefit of the fishermen of this country.
	Those fishermen are suffering in exactly the same way, only not quite so badly, as the farming population, where, because of mechanisation, there is a total absence of paid labour. On many farms of 300 to 400 acres all the work is done by the farmer. That situation results from competence and new methods. Largely, the trouble that the fishermen are in is partly their fault, partly the Government's fault and partly of course the fault of the CFP. Nevertheless, the policy is the best we have and we should stick by it.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, at this late hour, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be delighted that for once I will not mention biofuels. I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Saltoun on bringing forward this simple but terribly important Bill.
	Fishing is very much in my ancestry, as it is in my noble friend's. My great great grandfather founded his fishing dynasty from Wick and later moved to create a very prosperous fishing business out of the port of Leith, which he represented in another place for many years, having been honorary consul in St Petersburg for 16 years.
	On reading the Hansard of the debate last week in another place, I think that everyone involved in the UK fishing industry would agree that the so-called science on which Brussels bases its decisions is disastrous for the common fisheries policy and is hopelessly flawed. To give one small example, the white fishing boats in Scotland have been reduced from 351 to just 135, which means in reality that each vessel has a 1,000 square mile radius in which to fish.
	I had the privilege of sitting on Sub-Committee D for the statutory three years and was involved in two reports on the CFP. It was very distressing when we came to revisit this subject that nothing had really changed in the three years since our first report. The chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, when introducing our report in this House, said that,
	"it is tempting to sum up the report quickly by saying, "Too slow; too little; too late'."—[Official Report, 10/10/03; col. 561.]
	How I echo those words.
	I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Saltoun when she said that the TACs are set at an artificially high level. She referred to the wicked practice of discarding. I would go much further and say that it is criminal and of course environmentally insane. I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with his other hat on would agree to that particular point.
	Any outsider looking at the fact that there are EEC grants to decommission with one hand and grants to build new boats with the other would agree what a farce the CFP has become.
	My biggest worry is the long-term future for our fishermen and indeed for their families. I live close to the small fishing port of Eyemouth on the Berwickshire coast, and I am particularly concerned about all the ancillary businesses which are naturally affected by the CFP. In sparsely populated areas, fishermen and their ancillary trades have little or no opportunity to diversify. It is for that reason that my noble friend will have my full support in this enabling Bill. I hope that it will receive a quick passage through Parliament and Royal Assent before it is too late.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Bill, which failed in another place although it was promoted by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby. There is no time to lose in re-establishing our 200-mile limit round the coast of this country, excluding all fishing boats except those with an exchange of access agreement—those represented by the Faroes, Iceland, Ireland and Norway.
	The future of the sand eels is important in the food chain for both our fish and birds. At the last count, the Danes were taking no less than 8,140 tonnes of sand eels each year to put in their power stations to generate power. The UK industry is taking another 1,800 tonnes of sand eels to sell to the Danes; the Norwegians are taking slightly less. That is more than the sand eel population can stand. Even the European Commission recommends that we should cut by no less than 2,000 tonnes the number of sand eels taken next year.
	My noble friend Lord Forsyth introduced a debate on the future of the Atlantic salmon round the Scottish coast. When a young salmon goes to sea in its second or third year as a smolt, it needs a good fill of sand eels to get it to the plankton off Iceland. If it does not get that, it will not get there. The supply of sand eels is now so short that most smolt salmon never reach their growing areas so that they can return to this country as grilse or salmon. If the salmon are to return to this country, to the river of their birth, we need the Bill to control the loss of salmon illegally swept up in the nets of the new types of fishing boat.
	Having spent 40 years of my life in Sutherland, I know that, especially in the spring, when the fishing was bad, we went to Handa Island off the north-west coast. The population of puffins, terns, razorbills and guillemots was enormous, but during the past 20 years, since the Danes started fishing for sand eels, that population has vanished. The situation is now serious and I hope that the Bill will allow us to control our own fisheries policy, instead of being dictated to by Europe.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and thank my noble friend Lady Saltoun for introducing it. It contains important principles. The first has concerned me for a long time: we cannot apply processes that might work if the world were a simple place to a complex network of human relationships and expect to obtain the consequences we want. That sounds complicated, but process-driven thinking has completely failed in this area. We must start motivating people to do what is needed. There is a huge conservation issue. The Bill is important because it affects both communities and the environment.
	If we want to protect something, we need to give the people who use it ownership of it. Then they will want to protect it for the future. Once we have destroyed the habitat or the stocks, we cannot recreate them. People's livelihoods are at risk. Much local industry is dependent on fishing—perhaps I should say that there is a little left. Local businesses and communities are dependent on it. When we have destroyed them, what regeneration schemes will we try to put in place when they know nothing else?
	The Bill gives British fishermen a stake in their own future, because they will feel and know that their children will benefit from their restraint. With luck, they will stop over-fishing. If one feels that one is passing something on to one's own flesh and blood or one's community, one does something about it. That worked well with the cod recovery in either Iceland or Greenland. People who know more than myself will talk about that. People will even invest in the industry.
	In the south-west there was an initiative to reintroduce lobsters where they had been over-fished. That went well. If people cannot protect that, there is no point in such initiatives. If, suddenly, strangers and foreigners can come and raid what people feel is their own property, there is no point in investing in the future. But if one gives them ownership, they will defend that. The Bill is important because it starts to move in the correct direction. Instead of having many rules that do not work, because people will always find another way of interpreting them, one should begin to motivate people properly to look after their future.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the question which must by now be occurring to any normal person listening to or reading this debate is: "How on earth did we get into this mess?". The answer is, as usual, in our disastrous relationship with the European Union—in that the British people, and even Parliament, were deceived by the Government of the day. Any of your Lordships who wish to understand the whole history of how that has happened over more than 30 years should read a brilliant new book, entitled The Great Deception, written by Mr Christopher Booker and Mr Richard North, published by Continuum Books. It is closely researched and reveals a number of Foreign Office memoranda under the 30-year rule, which show exactly how we were deceived in the late 1960s and early 1970s—and indeed, for many years before that. It is thus essential reading for any noble Lord who wants to understand the history and nature of our present predicament.
	As far as the loss of our fisheries is concerned, Messrs Booker and North reveal that on 13th December 1971 Mr Geoffrey Rippon MP, who was negotiating the United Kingdom's access to what was then the Common Market, reported to the House of Commons on the outcome of the final meeting in Brussels which had sealed the fate of one of our most important assets. Mr Rippon claimed that any "outstanding problems" on fisheries had been resolved. He said the Community had been persuaded of the need to protect Britain's vital interests, both by conserving fish stocks and by protecting "the livelihoods of our fishermen". He then claimed:
	"it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction of the whole of our coastal waters up to 12 miles".
	That was simply not true. First, what he had signed meant that British boats would only have exclusive rights to fish out to six miles, and our control over access between six and 12 miles had been limited. Secondly, that was allowed only under a 10-year derogation which was to expire on 31st December 1982, after which it could only be extended by unanimity. The derogation could thus be ended by a single veto. Thirdly, the United Kingdom had conceded the most important principle of all; namely, the power of Brussels to control our fishing waters right up to our beaches. Even in the six-mile zone our fishermen would still have to comply with Community rules. And when the 200-mile limit was introduced in 1977 at the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, and was accepted by the EEC, our waters were given away entirely.
	No doubt desperate to hide how much the UK had conceded, Mr Rippon told the House of Commons:
	"I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period".
	Members of the other place were not able to see the actual wording of the accession treaty until after it was signed, a month later. Only then did it become clear how they had been misled by Mr Heath and his government. So that is a little of the story of how we were deceived into signing up to the common fisheries policy. As I have said, the whole saga is set out in devastating detail in The Great Deception.
	It is perhaps just worth repeating what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said: that when we joined what is now the European Union we owned some 70 to 75 per cent of the fish which swam in all EC waters. Now we are allowed to land, I think, some 25 per cent of the catch allowed by Brussels; and it is this transition which has caused the devastation to which other noble Lords have referred.
	When we use the expression "allowable catch", we see another lunacy of the common fisheries policy. This is that the Martians in Brussels presumably thought that they could practise conservation by limiting the amount of fish landed in port. They do not seem to have realised—probably because they had never been to sea—that when the nets come up, nearly all the fish in them are dead. So all fish beyond the "allowable catch" have to be thrown back dead, as the noble Lady said. The European Commission admitted not so long ago that some 4 million tonnes of dead fish are thus thrown back dead into the sea every year—good for the seabed, no doubt. That is conservation for you, a la Brussels.
	I would end these few remarks by saying how much I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench will have to tell us about Conservative Party policy towards the problem we are discussing. During the previous Parliament, my honourable friend Mr Patrick Nicholls, speaking on behalf of the party, said in the other place that our policy was to repatriate our fish, which had been the blindingly obvious thing to do for many years. The very next day, the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, taunted my right honourable friend Mr William Hague, then Leader of the Opposition, that this meant the Conservative Party wanted to leave the European Union altogether. Mr Blair's reasoning appeared to be, and probably still is—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies tonight—that because the other EU countries would never agree to us taking back our fish, we would have to break the EU treaty to do so and that would somehow result in our leaving the European Union entirely.
	At this suggestion, Mr Hague went into a somewhat undignified reverse and denied that we wanted to leave the European Union. Where that left our policy towards the common fisheries policy has never been made clear. As far as I can see, our policy is to,
	"renegotiate the treaties to take back our fish".
	But that begs the question, as the Prime Minister indicated: what happens if the others do not agree? And of course they will not—certainly not the Spanish or the Dutch. Do we just accept that we have failed and continue to live with this financial, environmental and ignominious disaster, or do we break the treaty and take our fisheries back anyway? Can either my noble friend on the Front Bench or the Minister explain why that would result in our expulsion from the European Union? I can see that there would be a few uncomfortable cocktail parties for our bureaucrats, diplomats and so on in Brussels, but the British fishing industry could live with that. I can see that there might even be a fine to pay in the Luxembourg so-called "court", but, as your Lordships will be aware, there is no mechanism to make a country actually pay such a fine, as Italy and France have been demonstrating for years. So would the others really force us out when we are such a large contributor in other ways to the whole dismal enterprise? Alas, I fear not, even if that is what many of us want to do anyway.
	So I would have thought that this excellent Bill, so ably and courageously promoted by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, can be supported by all sides of the House.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in congratulating Booker and North on their new book, The Great Deception. The good news is that noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons will receive a complimentary copy of the book, courtesy of Mr Sykes. I recommend that they read it.
	I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Bill. It is necessary and timely that the United Kingdom should now reconsider seriously reclaiming the power to manage our own fishing industry and fishing grounds, rather than their being managed by 24 other European countries, some of which have no fishing industry at all.
	When Britain foolishly agreed to a common fisheries policy in 1972, as a price for entry to the Common Market, only nine countries were involved. That was bad enough, but now that 25 countries have a finger in the fishing pie, the common fisheries policy will surely be completely unmanageable. That can only end in complete disaster. This is an opportune time to reclaim our fishing industry before another 10 countries join the EU next May. Furthermore, the policy of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is gaining support from all sides, as the debate last week in another place showed. That debate showed that it was not only the Official Opposition calling for the re-nationalisation of fishing, but also speakers from other political parties.
	It is clear that there is sheer frustration, all round, at the failure of the common fisheries policies successfully to manage the fishing affairs of the European Union. There is no confidence that matters will improve in the future. Indeed, far from expecting any improvement, speakers in the Commons debate feared that things could only get worse under EU management. Mr Whittingdale quoted figures to show that, since 1995, there had been a 25 per cent reduction in fishing boats and a 33 per cent drop in fish landed in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the decline had been even more marked, with a 60 per cent reduction in boats, resulting in an annual loss of income of £300 million a year directly and £755 million if ancillary industries are taken into account. Those figures were quoted in the House of Commons and were not challenged.
	How have we allowed such a disaster to happen, and why should it be allowed to continue? We shall, of course, be told, perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the sacrifice of our fishing industry, fishermen and their families and all those who work in industries concerned with fishing is worth while because of the wider benefits of EU membership. They were sacrificed because they did not lobby loudly at that time. But those benefits are hard to identify.
	Like fishing, the UK has been adversely affected by the disaster of the common agricultural policy (CAP), which has destroyed much of our agricultural production and caused many farmers and farm workers to leave the land altogether. We pay a net contribution of £3.5 million a year to the EU, which could be used for good purposes in this country, including to assist the fishing industry. Even on trade we run an annual adverse balance of some £4.5 billion a year. That is equivalent to the loss of 185,000 British jobs, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The constant stream of regulations reduces the competitiveness of British industry. It is quite clear that, in any cost benefit analysis, it is not worth while to sacrifice the fishing industry any further.
	We shall of course also be told that to withdraw from the common fisheries policy would mean leaving the EU. I believe that to be untrue and absurd. Why would the other countries in the EU wish to expel Britain, which contributes so much to their economies and coffers and which they consider a milch cow? That would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Are the Government really saying that, when a policy has gone disastrously wrong and is hurting and destroying a great industry and the livelihoods of those associated with it, we should take no action to withdraw from that policy? That is nonsensical and a betrayal of the British people and the British fishing industry. It is quite suicidal and completely unacceptable.
	The common fisheries policy really has reached the end of the road. The Government childishly mock the Official Opposition for wanting to negotiate a withdrawal from the CFP as come-outers who want to withdraw completely from the EU—I wish the Opposition were come-outers; they would have a lot more support from me if they were. Instead of mocking the Opposition, the Government themselves should announce their intention to renationalise the fishing industry and start immediate negotiations to bring that to fruition.
	The Bill before us points the way to withdrawal and I sincerely trust that the House will not only give it a Second Reading tonight, but will agree to the Bill as a whole in all its future stages, as soon as possible.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, has enabled us to have a very interesting debate tonight. She said that she introduced the Bill in the spirit of giving the Government some ammunition to get a really constructive and forward-looking agreement at the Council of Ministers, which I support. However, that is as far as I am able to go in supporting the Bill. In the powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, we heard about the seas that we share, and although this debate may be useful ammunition, withdrawing from the common fisheries policy is not a practical way forward for us. Indeed, it is not constructive to offer unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy as a hope for our fishing industries at this stage. In fact, it is a cruel hoax to suggest that they will embrace a rosy future by withdrawing from the CFP. That would not happen.
	The future lies in constructing a common fisheries policy that does not have the appalling faults mentioned by noble Lords this evening—with a Commission that has always done far too little far too late and that has the most dreadful rules, as noble Lords have explained, on by-catch and discards. This House should be proud of the two reports—as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, reminded us—produced by Sub-Committee D. We expressed strong disappointment at the continual failure of the Council of Ministers to find a way forward.
	Technology creep, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, has undoubtedly been a problem. However, technology is now available, were the Commission to choose to use it. The Council of Ministers should encourage the Commission to consider things such as the satellite monitoring technology that is now available. It could produce a more accurate picture of who was fishing where. That might be a good use of technology.
	I will be interested to hear the Minister's view on whether EU structural funding will be geared more towards helping fishing communities to diversify and not just to consider fishing-related options, such as effort control and closed area assistance. For some communities, the number of people involved in fishing will have to diminish. For that to happen, those communities will need structural funding help. That will make it easier for politicians from communities that are particularly affected to come to an agreement on the future of the common fisheries policy.
	I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I was disappointed that, for once, he did not mention the octopus. It would have been particularly relevant to a fishing speech. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who referred to the project of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, involving lobster breeding in Padstow. I had the privilege of going round it a couple of summers ago. It was a most interesting day, and I shall be interested to hear any reference to the progress that it has made. I shall also be interested in any reference to the Conservatives' policy on withdrawal from the common fisheries policy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, also made an interesting speech about sand eels. It is a big disappointment that the Government have not proposed any form of marine Bill for this year. A lot of work has been done on the need for marine conservation areas. The Government have announced that they will develop offshore wind farms, but they have not produced any sort of marine spatial planning Bill. The wind farms will be constructed without any framework for offshore planning. In the light of this debate and other proposals, it is time that the Government came up with some form of marine stewardship and planning Bill. We face the sort of development at sea that would be unthinkable without a planning framework if it were to happen on land. We ought to think it outrageous that it should happen at sea with no real framework.
	We believe that there is a future for the common fisheries policy. We hope that we can embrace that future with more vigour than in the past. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the progress that is likely to be made.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must press her on her view that those of us who hold out the prospect of leaving the common fisheries policy are practising a cruel hoax—I think that is what she said—on fishing communities. Surely, it is terribly simple. We take back our fish; we build up our fish stocks; we prevent foreign boats coming in while we do it; and, when we have satisfied our industry, we lease any surplus to foreign boats. It is as simple as that. That is not a hoax. It should be obvious.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, on the face of it, it is obvious, but many issues arise from it. What constitutes a British fishing boat? What constitutes a British company with a fishing fleet that must still face the technology creep that was mentioned? People will find ways round it, in order to continue to fish in waters that are full of fish.
	I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, when he says that local people need to have local ownership and local management. There is a future in regional management committees, which I believe is a European Commission proposal. Perhaps the Minister would say where the regional management committees will have a way forward. People should be managing their own areas, but within the common fisheries policy.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on introducing this important and long-overdue Bill. It is a pleasure to support her in principle. I found it deeply moving to hear her express her sorrow at the decline of the port of Fraserburgh that her family founded, and which has been such a thriving port in my recent memory and used by my family.
	Great Britain has more coastline than any other European Union country. Our waters have always teemed with fish that have been conserved by our own fishermen throughout the years. I must declare an interest. British waters have been fished by my family and me for more than 400 years in the south-west fishery. I am vice-president of the Duchy Fish Quota Company of Cornwall and director of the National Lobster Hatchery at Padstow. Noble Lords have kindly referred to a Private Member's Bill that I took through this House five years ago to license lobster ranching. Perhaps I may say that we are still waiting for the enabling orders to come through.
	I am sure that noble Lords need no reminder from me about how crucial it is to get the management of fisheries right, so that the resource is administered in a sustainable fashion, with support to communities that rely on this industry and the associated industries of fish processing, boat building and repair, and so many other connected businesses, which are often in areas of the lowest employment.
	This debate is contemporaneous with talks in Brussels to establish permitted fish catches within the framework of the common fisheries policy. Yet again, it looks like there will have to be substantial cuts in cod quotas. That is no great surprise as year on year the estimates of stocks are reduced further and TACs have to be cut. Surely that is the best possible evidence of the continuing failure of the common fisheries policy to maintain what has always been recognised by fishermen as a very delicate balance.
	The arrival of technology in the 1980s allowed fish to be "hoovered" up in an unprecedented way. It interfered disastrously with the breeding cycle of so many fish. I am the first to admit that I have seen my own boats do it in their time. But, as an industry, we quickly sobered up. I would not like anyone to continue to think that the technology so liberally used in the 1980s is not now regarded as a very dangerous, but useful, commodity. Science and technology should be harnessed better in future, and I am sure that they will.
	The issue of discarded fish is further proof of the inability of the common fisheries policy to provide a proper solution to the problems with the European fishing industry. The fact that as many fish are dumped dead in the sea as are landed for human consumption is a travesty and must be halted. Unfortunately, it is an inevitable consequence of a policy of restricting fishermen through tight quotas and fining them for bringing back more fish than they are permitted. That matter must be re-examined.
	A number of other specific problems can be identified with the arrangements as they exist today, not least the flaws in collecting reliable data on stock levels. That is fundamental because it is the bedrock on which the common fisheries policy stands or, more accurately, falls. Effective planning without accurate statistics is an impossibility, and the techniques currently used on commercial and research vessels leave a lot to be desired. "Guesstimation" is dangerous and shameful when the welfare and livelihoods of whole communities are on the line.
	There is no question but that the common fisheries policy has failed the British fishing industry. It has failed to conserve fish stocks when they need protection and seems more apt at accommodating the vast Spanish fleet in our waters. During the eight years since 1995, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, noted in his remarks, there has been a reduction of 25 per cent in the amount of fish landed on our shores. Moreover, and equally grave, it has failed to provide help and protection to struggling fishing communities.
	Fortunately, it does not have to be this way. Alternative systems are now operating successfully in other fishing nations. Norway, the Faroe Islands and the Falklands all have well-respected systems in place, involving to a high degree the fishermen themselves, which is key to the success of any policy. It is interesting to consider that British fishermen have no objection to the common fisheries policy as such, and would support it if they felt it was effective at doing its job, but they have been consistently disappointed by the ongoing failure to find a good deal both for British fishermen and for the resource from which they earn their living. We have much to learn from these other fishing nations. Further, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, expressed so well, we must involve our fishermen. They understand best how to create and maintain a sustainable system. Without their support, any system will struggle to succeed.
	Consecutive governments have sold our country's fishing birthright; from Edward Heath's government, miserably outlined by my noble friend Lord Pearson, to the Government of the present day. Not enough votes and not enough jobs in it, fishing has been bargained away for other deals at other times. As one Labour fisheries Minister in this House said to me within the past few years, "Judith, don't keep banging on about fishing and the fishermen. Do you realise that we make more money in this country selling mushrooms, and that that is a lot less troublesome?". But it is communities in distant places which suffer, such as over 80 ports in Cornwall alone, along with all the other livelihoods that depend on those ports.
	Now, in this Conservative Party, our policy is to attempt to renegotiate the common fisheries policy to take back control of our coastal waters, and if that fails, then we would have no choice but to withdraw from this damaging agreement and restore national control. As my honourable friend John Whittingdale, shadow Secretary of State for agriculture, fisheries and food, explained in another place:
	"In the next few months, we will develop a new way of managing fish stocks based on controlling inputs by limiting fishing effort and banning industrial fishing in place of the discredited and damaging quota system of output controls".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/03; col. 1000.]
	The Government should act now. They have a rare opportunity, with the stalled discussions on the draft constitution, to make this another "red line" in Europe. When the talks reopen, Britain could take advantage of Article 12 of the draft constitution which provides for,
	"the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy".
	Britain has considerable bargaining power on fishing matters. We heard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, confirm that 70 per cent of all fish caught in the European Union are taken out of our British waters. If that is true, we should be able to exert phenomenal influence over the shape of the European Union policy on fishing. I urge the Government not to waste this chance to negotiate greater national control over our waters and, if necessary, they should not shirk from withdrawing from this failing policy altogether.
	Once again, I wish to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for providing us with a forum for such an important debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I join with the thanks to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating the debate. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber for the first few minutes of her speech but I believe that the gist of it is quite clear.
	Today, my colleague Ben Bradshaw is in Brussels in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, along with his colleagues with responsibility for these matters from Scotland and Northern Ireland, negotiating in the crucial EU discussions which will determine the shape and extent of fishing opportunities for 2004. It is a negotiating challenge of the kind that has faced UK fishing Ministers over the past few decades, as many noble Lords have said.
	I do not dispute that the common fisheries policy has been one of the most problematic areas in our relationship with Europe. I doubt that I will agree with much of the blurb in the Booker and North book of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, but clearly the deal on the common fisheries policy was not one of the better aspects of the negotiations in 1972 and it has proved to get worse as we have gone on.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, did the noble Lord refer to the "blurb" in the Booker and North book? If he did, may I ask him whether he has read it and, if not, whether he will do so?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, I have not read it. I shall no doubt dip into it at some point, particularly if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct and we shall be getting a free copy. I am always happy to read books which are sent to me, but I suspect that I will not be deeply sympathetic to the overall theme. All I am saying is that the common fisheries policy is not the best dimension for those of us who defend our relationship with Europe. It has ended up in a serious problem in fish stocks and the conservation of fish for fishing communities not only in this country but also in other countries of Europe.
	However, the Bill proposes that we should effectively provide ourselves with a mechanism for leaving the common fisheries policy. That lacks legal, political and scientific credibility. I can see that it is a seductive thought that all we have to do is announce that we are leaving the system and take back unilateral control over the management of our fisheries. Certainly in terms of the time and frustrations of fisheries Ministers I am sure that in their dreams they also would wish that that were the case.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that this seductive vision is a deception. It does not do any good for those who depend on fisheries or for those concerned with the environmental and conservation dimensions of fish in our waters and in European waters.
	As to the legal points and the political points associated with them, the Bill seeks to take back UK control of fisheries within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It would do so by giving the Fishery Limits Act 1976 priority over Community law—a unique arrangement—notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. Leaving aside whether that would withstand a legal challenge, the Bill would then attempt to restrict the licensing of fishing to UK vessels, however defined, and those of other countries where authorised. It would require fish caught in UK waters to be landed in UK ports.
	It is no use deluding ourselves into believing that, in legal terms, this is a practicable or obtainable plan. It is not. It would require, in effect, unilateral withdrawal from the CFP. That is impossible under EU law as it stands and therefore only achievable, if at all, through a complex series of negotiations with other member states and others. Such re-negotiation is not on the agenda. Even if it were, the chances of achieving the necessary unanimous agreement would clearly be remote.
	It does not get round the issue to say, as some people do, that, technically speaking, it would be possible for Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—at least, the part which could be said to relate to fisheries. Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act allows Community law, under the EU treaties, to apply in the UK. That includes the whole of the common fisheries policy under the treaty establishing the European Community. Repealing Section 2(1) would disapply the treaty in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that that is where he wants to be, but the UK would still be acting unlawfully because it would be in breach of the terms of the treaty and therefore of Community law. So while we might remove the obligation from our statute book, we could not remove the obligation from international law. It is a complete illusion, therefore, to suggest that with one bound we are free. We are not—the legal requirements remain.
	We can all argue about the legal structure. The legal argument is not in fact the most important. The fact is that Europe, as a whole, needs a common fisheries policy. We have common waters. We have common interests in conserving the fish and other wildlife in those waters. We need a common fisheries policy. The fact that the one we have has proved hugely unsatisfactory in many respects does not remove that basic requirement that the countries of Europe, the countries of the North Sea and the countries that face the Atlantic need a common approach.
	If I can put this point rather more crudely than the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, did, hardly a single commercial fish stock obligingly remains static within one country's legal waters—certainly not ours. As he indicated, the concept of a 200-mile limit is a bit cerebral, given that, at one point, we are only 21 miles away from the coast of another EU member and, at many points, a lot less than 200 miles away from Norway. The fish swim about—they are not our fish. They are not, of necessity, likely to be more in UK waters than elsewhere. They do not read notices telling them to stay put in one country's waters. They spawn in certain places, they move to feed in other places and sometimes they migrate over tremendous distances in the course of their lives.
	There are patterns of fishing industries and exploitation which go back many years, often to before the common fisheries policy, under which numerous countries exploit the different stocks. Applying a unilateral approach to that would not resolve the issue of conservation, nor would it be practical to enforce it.
	The truth is that if, by some leap away from our legal obligations, we found ourselves outside the CFP, we would have to renegotiate with the remaining EU members who remain within the CFP. We would also need to renegotiate with the EU and Norway, the EU and Greenland, the EU and the Faroes, the EU and Iceland, and so on, to conclude arrangements which would, in effect, cover exactly the same ground. Instead of having a CFP, we would end up with a series of bilateral and trilateral agreements which covered much the same level of controls and were hugely more complicated and less coherent than the CFP. That does not seem to us a sensible way of proceeding.
	Given the information that is now at our disposal on the level of stocks and the lack of effectiveness of some earlier control mechanisms, we must therefore turn our minds to how we can develop a common fisheries policy which begins to conserve the stocks and returns them to a viable state in those species which are not currently in a viable state and preserves an industry for our fishing communities. That will not be easy; making progress within the framework of the CFP is a frustrating and time-consuming business, as I have said, but we have made some recent progress. The CFP was reviewed by the Council of Ministers during 2002, and the framework regulation is much revised and improved. The Government achieved many of their objectives in the negotiations, which were formulated after wide public consultation.
	The new CFP regulations include a much more robust commitment from the Council of Ministers to conserve, and where necessary recover, fish stocks in accordance with scientific advice. It puts environmental considerations at the heart of the CFP and reiterates with relative stability the mechanism for dividing EU fishing opportunities among member states, in accordance with their historical track record. It renews the rights of coastal states after 12 nautical miles—to address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made. Next year, it prevents member states paying subsidies for building new vessels, which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and other speakers, would be an absurd process. Subsidies of the sort that the UK has not paid for many years will now be banned in all EU states. The new policy also provides for the setting up of regional advisory committees, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. Those committees will give fishermen and all parties with an interest in commercial fish stocks a much more direct input into their management in localities where they fish.
	Those are substantial improvements in the nature of the CFP. However, the last thing that I want to convey is that the Government believe that we have now solved all the problems. That is not the case. To make the difference, the Council of Ministers must now take decisions within the framework that make sense in terms of the level of fish stocks and the strategy that we are adopting in relation to the different species. That is a substantial challenge. Nevertheless, the framework gives other like-minded member states and ourselves a far better basis for pressing the case than we previously had.
	The new approach also shows positive signs of a new determination on the part of the Commission and other member states that have hitherto not been at the forefront of effective enforcement to take these matters forward. The regional advisory councils will provide a control mechanism involving the fishing industry. The adoption by the Commission at the UK's request of emergency measures to protect against damage from fishing the unique cold-water coral formations known as Darwin mounds, and the adoption of an EU measure to restrict shark-finning, are also important aspects of the new approach.
	This week my colleagues are negotiating in Brussels to set within the new framework the limits and measures that will apply next year. The provisions next year are very important, but we must also take a strategic approach. The Prime Minister has asked his strategy unit to produce a strategy on fisheries to map out a long-term strategy for the industry. In the new year, we shall have the basis for that strategy.
	Noble Lords made a number of points during the debate that can be better dealt with within the new framework than has been the case in the past 25 years. Certainly, we need to improve enforcement and do something about discards. The new process for discards will help the situation. An action plan is before the Council and we are confident that there will be measures to reduce levels of discards in the measures to be adopted next year.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we should improve monitoring. Satellite monitoring will greatly assist our control. All vessels longer than 50 metres fishing in our waters will henceforth have to carry satellite positions reporting their position from 1st January 2005. The Government will meet the cost for vessels licensed in this country. Similar measures are being adopted by our Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues and throughout the rest of Europe.
	On a matter beyond the issues relating to stocks for human consumption, there are problems relating to sand eels, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred. We have had that discussion on previous occasions. The Commission is proposing a 20 per cent cut in the sand eel take next year.
	Therefore, I think that there has been a sea change, if I can put it that way, in the way that the balance of opinion within Europe—the Commission itself and the Council of Ministers—approaches fishing policy. I should have preferred that the fishing industry itself and the scientists who advise it had a greater detailed consensus on the level of stocks which need to be conserved and the measures that we have to take. Unfortunately, it is not a complete consensus at the moment.
	However, it is clear to the Government that drastic measures restricting catch will be needed for some considerable time in relation to many species. It is no good the United Kingdom taking those measures by ourselves; it requires co-operation across all the fishing nations of Europe. That, to my mind, means a common fisheries policy—not the common fisheries policy we have had in the past but a common fisheries policy of the kind we began to put together with the new framework agreed last year. I believe that sets an agenda and an ability for us to achieve what I think all noble Lords wish to see—that is, a revival of fish stocks on the one hand and a sustainable European fishing industry on the other.
	The Government will not oppose the Second Reading—we never do—but we cannot accept the Bill as it stands. However, we recognise many of the concerns expressed in the debate by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and by other noble Lords. We have a common objective in getting the matter right.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to confirm to the House what the protocol is—many of us who have taken part in the debate tonight are from north of the Border—about negotiating the CFP in Brussels with regard to the devolved administrations? At a recent meeting of the Council of Ministers there was no representative from Wales, which, admittedly, has a very small fishing industry, and certainly no one from Scotland. What is the protocol? Is it England that represents the United Kingdom? Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as with all other issues, the UK Government represent the United Kingdom. On fisheries issues, the UK fisheries Minister, Ben Bradshaw, is normally accompanied by fisheries Ministers for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ross Finnie normally attends those negotiations with, previously, Elliot Morley, and now Ben Bradshaw. So Scotland is very much represented there. However, at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to conduct those negotiations.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the hour is late, very much later than I was originally told it was likely to be, so I shall not detain your Lordships by responding to individual speeches. However, I shall read what has been said very carefully, particularly what has been said by the Minister, to whom I should like to reiterate that this is but an enabling Bill, and that it might make a nice stick for the Secretary of State in his negotiations with the European Union.
	All I wish to do now is to thank all those who have stayed so very late to speak in this debate for taking the trouble to do so and for speaking so eloquently. I am most grateful to all of them.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.